The U.S. Constitution Debate, As I See It

This is not about gun control. It is about the legalities surrounding the altering of the United States Constitution. Because of the gun control issue, however, the U.S. Constitution has become a topic of debate.

So many people talk about the second amendment, trying to decipher the various so-called intricacies of it. Some say the language is quite plain and distinct. Simple is better. Simple is less open to interpretation. Then others say it is multi-faceted and complex, regardless of the simple wording. Still others wish it had been written out more specifically.

Be that as it may, the document does state that they are rights that can not be taken away by government. That sounds pretty plain to me.

What the document does not address, apparently, are the rights of the citizenry of the United States, with regard to making changes to the U.S. Constitution. In Canada we have similar documents to those found in the United States. We have the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which are rough equivalents to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights from my understanding of them.

Here's the kicker. The amendments are amendments. Are you understanding what I'm saying? An amendment is a change to something. That's their sole purpose. The second amendment is a change, and as inflammatory as it might be as subject matter right now, it doesn't negate the fact that it's a change in itself where people are trying to argue that the U.S. Constitution can NOT be changed. Excuse me?

The U.S. Constitution can and HAS ALREADY been changed with every single amendment, including the one being so hotly debated with people saying you can't change an amendment.

Isn't anyone else baffled by the insufficient logic to all of these arguments? Isn't anyone else confused as to why there should be an argument at all? Laws change. All the time.

That being said, however, even if the U.S. Constitution were to be considered an iron-clad document stating that the government is not allowed to take away any of these rights, it does not stop the people themselves from doing so.

Yup, you read that right. If every single person in the country decide they did not want free speech, the first amendment would disappear in a heartbeat. Why? Because the people are allowed to change any damn thing they want about the laws that are governing them. The people are the ones responsible for writing the Constitution, as evidenced by the words, "We the People," and it doesn't get any plainer than that, folks.

The people wrote the laws, the people can change the laws. This is not something written in stone by some God pointing a finger in the general vicinity of Moses. If the people are feeling trapped by the laws they have imposed upon themselves, then it is up to them to make the changes.

If the majority of the American people want gun control, they will change the second amendment as they see fit. The government will probably get a sneaky hand in there, too, but that's the risk you run when you open up laws for amendment (see, there's that word again).

The thing people really fear is the lack of control they have over their government. They feel they're being trampled in the wake of overbearing politicians, their needs ignored. In the United States, as well as in Canada, the government does not fear its people. The people fear their government. We do not force the changes as citizens that we really should. We do not exercise our rights as we should, and we do not punish our governments for breaking the rules after they attain the power of their office.

In France the government fears its people, and the people are not hesitant to show their displeasure should the government do something they don't like. It's an inherent part of their culture, and has been since the French Revolution. You know, Marie "let them eat cake" Antoinette, and the whole "Off with their heads" thing? Once the people took over the supervision of their government, the government responded as they should have done in the first place - as paid employees of the people, not rulers of the people.

Speaking from experience, the government in Canada does not fear or respect its people. They waste money constantly, spending it on things we do not want, balancing the budget with an eye on the next election, rather than on long-term goals. Government employees are our servants, not our betters, even if they do have better job security. In my mind I imagine a conversation something like this taking place in my near future:

          "You work for the government, do you not?"
          "Yes."
          "The government of...?"
          "Canada."
          "What is Canada?"
          "A country."
          "A country is made up of what?"
          "People."
          "What am I?"
          "A person?"
          "So, who do you work for?"
          "A bitch?"
          "You're damn straight, now get crackin'."