Since the tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut much has been written about gun control, this is not about gun control. Let me begin by stating as a matter of record that I am not in favor of increased gun control. Most individuals what legally own firearms are relatively sane people that use those firearms for their intended purpose; hunting, collecting, or target practice. The individuals that illegally own firearms, well we all know what they want to use them for or that they have legal impediments keeping them from legally owning firearms, impediments put in place by a government elected by the people. My main purpose in this blog post is the fact that I cannot get on Facebook any day without seeing tons of posts from those in favor of guns spouting about their 2nd Amendment rights. I sympathize with them. I am a big fan of social media and believe it has changed our nation, and the world. Some of those changes have been good and some have been bad, but that is not the purpose of this posting. Instead I want to focus on these posts, posts made or shared by my friends, my circle of internet social media friends. I respect these people, first off, or I would not have them in my circle of friends. However, I am disheartened at times, by their adherence and mimicry of facts that they either do not investigate or do not fully understand.
The main point is this, most of those will state that the owning of firearms is their right, secured by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, so that they can keep the government in check. If the government gets out of hand, in their opinion, the right to keep guns is our way of protecting ourselves against an unjust government. They even look back to Nazi Germany and the taking away of guns by the government and fear that if such a move was made in this country we would fall into a dictatorship. Their thinking is flawed, seriously flawed. For my argument here I refer all those to Article Three, Section Three of the United States Constitution.
What is Article Three, Section Three of the United States Constitution you ask? For those of you unfamiliar with the Constitution or that have been out of school too long to remember, let me refresh your memory:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Do you understand now? The way for the American people to make certain the government does not get out of control is through voting and taking an active part in that government. It is not by taking arms up against the government. This little portion of the Constitution, these three sentences, makes it clear that going to war against the United States or aiding the enemies of the United States is an act of treason. So, for those hoarding weapons in the fear that one day they will have to rise up against the government, be careful…if you ever do, you would be guilty of treason, a crime that could carry the death penalty.
The drafters of the U.S. Constitution put this section in because they were very concerned about the definition of treason. Be glad that they did. Under the prevailing English law at the time there were five different acts that could be considered treason, including imagining (or conspiring) the death of the King (or Queen), "violating" the Queen or other female member of the royal family, certain types of counterfeiting, along with the two definitions used by the framers of our Constitution. Those that wrote the Constitution thought the English laws were too broad, and wanted the American people to have dissenting views and opinions. That is the great thing about our nation, especially today when Republicans are constantly speaking disparagingly about our President; if the English views of being a traitor were put into the Constitution then you would not be able to do that without being subject to trail and death. The last portion of that section, for those confused, mean that a person's children or relatives (the "corruption of blood" part) of a traitor are not to be considered traitorous just by relation and that the "no forfeiture" part means that once the traitor dies then payment for their crimes has been complete and no further payment is required. This section requires the confession in an open court of the accused or the testimony of two different witnesses to the same act of treason. In Haupt vs. United States (1947), the Supreme Court ruled that two witnesses were not required to prove intent or that an act is treasonable, only that two witnesses were required to prove the act occurred, and those could be eyewitnesses or federal agents investigating the crime, for example.
So, in short, those who take up arms against the government could be considered traitors. They would be tried by the courts and Congress would determine their punishment. Before a person claims that their weapons are to protect them from the government, be careful and be lucky. Be careful you don't actually pick up that weapon against your government and be lucky that the original writers of the Constitution did not include that bit about conspiring or imagining the death of our elected leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment