Weapons ban overlooked in US

Ten days ago, Congress failed to renew the Assault Weapons Ban, a bipartisan piece of legislation with the best of intentions. Nonetheless, this ban represents an adjustment in the Bill of Rights – an adjustment to the right to bear arms. The question remains – if this law is an abridgement of one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, where was the massive outcry against it?Let me make a parallel with a recent occurrence. Just as the Assault Weapons Ban was created with the public safety in mind, protests were highly regulated and forced away from party convention venues this past summer. Terrorist attacks occurred in conjunction with the election process in Spain this past March, so the obvious course of action for authorities would be to protect party conventions. Similarly, many certainly do not mind when pro-life protesters, due to a couple of abortion bombings, are kept a substantial distance away from abortion clinics. Despite the fact that many assault weapons will not be used in an illegal fashion and that many protesters are not violent, the specter of danger requires that preventative measures be taken.Nonetheless, many people all across the country – the CT included – could not stop whining about the “demise of civil rights” and the “rise of a police state” this past summer. Even though public safety to justify abortion clinic cordons and assault weapon bans, which represent abridgements to the Bill of Rights, liberals start to complain when they do not get their way. Much like a Shakespearean hero overcoming his blinding hubris and reaching a tragic epiphany, they must re-evaluate their own selves and realize that they seek the same ends as gun rights advocates – the preservation of the Bill of Rights. If one says that the Second Amendment is no longer valid in today’s day and age, the entire Bill of Rights needs to be called into question. If the right to bear arms is not valid without the unstable frontier conditions experienced by our forefathers, then the freedoms endowed by the First Amendment are dubious without King George III telling us how to pray and think. These rights need to exist regardless of whether environmental conditions do not require them. Conversely, satisfactory conditions prove that they are working correctly.In fact, the Bill of Rights has been expanded significantly. Abortion has been legalized, criminals enjoy a substantial amount of rights and, in the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” “Congress” is now defined as any “state, county, township, village, hamlet and any other obscure landmass.” As shown by their staunch support for criminals’ rights, and in their obstinate opposition to the partial-birth abortion ban and the PATRIOT-USA Act, liberals stand ready to defend – or, if necessary, expand upon – 26 amendments, yet turn their heads from the Second Amendment. When they give the same respect to the National Rifle Association as to NARAL, when they view the Million Mom March as being as dishonorable as a Religious Right demonstration, when they allow Charlton Heston to enjoy the same fashionable status as Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, when they finally put Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg out to pasture, then their support of the Constitution will finally be vindicated. Scott can be reached at tscott@campustimes.org.