To the editor:
The Constitution of the United States, as written in 1787, did not mention "slavery" by name but did make provisions in law for the ownership of "unfree" persons. It was the Constitution written by the founding fathers and it was the LAW of the land. On December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment changed the law of the land as originally written in 1787. Further, in 1896, Plessey v Ferguson, the Supreme Court of the United States (S.C.O.T.U.S.), stated "Separate but Equal" was the law of the land. American Patriots took to the streets and said they did not agree with S.C.O.T.U.S. In 1954, Brown v Board of Education, the Supreme Court knocked down the "Separate but Equal" doctrine, changed the Constitution and the rest is history.
My point, the Constitution is not carved in stone and it can and must change, by majority vote, when necessary. The people who wrote the Constitution knew it was not infallible and that is why we have Article Five: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution..."
Fast forward, Cape Coral Council meeting of Jan. 27. One of our new, young, energetic council members introduced a resolution with some pro-gun patriot friends demanding that Cape Coral "reaffirm" their INTERPRETATION of the Second Amendment of the Constitution with this Council declaration. I am not sure, but the resolution seemed to imply that the President of the United States was trying to take their hand guns. They fear that the "Government" is coming to their homes and will take their guns away.
There is no credible movement, in Congress, to eliminate the Second Amendment and take anybody's guns. The mayor asked the police chief if he had taken any legal guns from any citizens in the Cape. He answered "No."
Those folks with guns are sure intense! Would not want to anger them. They have a right to speak their opinion, but an opinion is not always right!
Back to the issue: 1. About 70 percent of Americans (a clear majority) believe that we should look at the Second Amendment and rethink it. They hope that meaningful regulations might prevent some of the terrible gun violence we have experienced in the past few years. They are not trying to eliminate guns! Food for thought: When someone buys an automobile, they must register their ownership with the government, get insurance to cover any damage they might do, they must have an operator's permit that says they can handle the equipment and they must follow the rules of the road. Is a gun really that much different?
2. The Constitution is not infallible as originally written. Article V of the Constitution provides for "changes." The Constitution has changed in the past and when the majority want change it will do so in the future.
So stop preaching to the majority of people in this country that want meaningful rules for guns that they are less patriotic than you. Further, there is no conspiracy by the "Government" to come to your home and seize your guns. Unfortunately, for some people, they insist that their delusions must be everyone's realities. It is very sad that these zealous gun patriots can only feel safe in the Cape if they have guns blazing in both hands. BTW, who really is behind all this fear-baiting about our terrible government? Wow, ammunition and gun sales go through the roof every time there is this screaming that the President is coming for your guns! Nobody is coming for your guns, but someone is taking a pile of money to the bank.
The young council member supported the resolution with a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Well here is another quote to ponder, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel(Dr. Samuel Johnson 1775)."
P.S. The gun-patriots never fall victim to logical or reasonable discussion. When they can't refute the message, they will denigrate the messenger.