Your Rights are Obsolete?

An amazing (to me) opinion was published in the Star-Telegram the other day. I was going to comment on it immediately after prying myself off the ceiling, but I had to wait until my blood pressure was back down to normal (114 over 73, thank you).

Lee Gaillard had written an opinion piece entitled "The Second Amendment is Obsolete." (This guy really knows how to grab my attention.) I naively assumed it was meant to startle the reader and sound the alarm that the gun control fanatics are mounting another attack on what many Americans consider to be a sacred right to "keep and bear arms."

Having, on many occasions, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I instinctively reach for my gun (figuratively speaking, of course) when someone suggests that the Constitution (or its "Bill of Rights") should be rewritten or otherwise defaced.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Liberals, who wet themselves at the sight of a firearm, keep bringing up the argument that the reference to "the people" in the Second Amendment refers to the individual states. If the Second Amendment were the only amendment to the Constitution, that argument might not be patently bogus, but the other amendments that refer to "the people" make it clear that the framers of the Constitution knew the difference between "the people" and "the states."

For example: the First Amendment addresses "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

The Fourth Amendment starts out with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

The Tenth Amendment pretty well establishes the fact that "the states" and "the people" are not to be confused.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now.....as I have said before, it's time we either rewrite the Constitution to satisfy contemporary attitudes (say, every 10 years or so - or whenever a new fad attitude comes along) or repeal all laws that are in violation of the Constitution.

The status quo (numerous laws that flaunt the Constitution) makes a sham of our Constitution and our claim to be a duly constituted republic.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I can read.