Op-Ed Argues We Should Just Ignore What Constitution Says

AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File

Not everyone has an interest in reading the United States Constitution. It's not the most entertaining read, to be sure, though it's still important. Everyone should read it at least once, if not more often.


Still, most people can agree that the words in the Constitution matter. We might argue about what they mean, of course, but most at least pay lip service to the text.


Not everyone, though. 

You see, I came across an op-ed decrying "firearm fundamentalists" that I just had to address.

In Colorado, where there has already been a mass shooting this year, firearm deaths have increased over the last 10 years. Between 2016 and 2021, on average more than 900 people in Colorado died every year from guns, and the state in 2021 ranked 18th for gun-related deaths.

Those are the numbers. What do they mean?

They mean abject failure on the part of political leaders. They reflect a diseased society. They manifest the moral toxins of a deep-pocketed gun lobby and Second Amendment fanaticism.

The good news is that in Colorado some state lawmakers represent the voice of sanity.

First, I'm going to note that with the exception of the time since 2020, homicide rates have been going down, for the most part, across the nation and have been for decades.

But over the last 10 years or so, Colorado has rolled anti-gun. If homicides have gone up over the last decade in Colorado, then I'm not sure state lawmakers are really the voice of sanity so much as contributing to the environment that led to an increase in murder.

After all, if gun control is being passed and murders are increasing, can we really say gun control is the answer?

Back to the op-ed...

But assault weapons are in a special class that warrants unique contempt.

The AR-15, the most prominent style of assault weapon, was originally designed for military use. Its lethality might be suitable for war but not the streets of America. Bullets fired from an AR-15 move so fast that the gun “can eviscerate multiple people in seconds,” The Washington Post reported last year.

A blood-spattered mythology has arisen around the AR-15, increasingly the weapon of choice for mass shooters. But for peaceful Americans, who just want to attend school and shop at the store without fearing for their lives, the AR-15’s status as perfectly legal shocks the conscience.

Bombs or armed tanks, were they legal for any civilian to own, would likely account for comparatively few deaths. Most people accept without protest that regulations are necessary for such destructive devices. Why wouldn’t the same be true for assault weapons?

Perhaps the greatest value of an assault weapons ban would be its contribution to a culture shift away from death-cult gun zeal. The nation must escape the sick sway of firearm fundamentalists, whose crazed interpretation of the Second Amendment has twisted a right into a suicide pact.


By "firearm fundamentalism" the author means actually paying attention to the words of the Second Amendment. 

That "crazed interpretation" he talks about is nothing more than thinking that the words on the page actually have meaning, that "shall not be infringed" means, you know, that you shouldn't infringe on people's rights.

That's the crime here. That's what he's taking issue with. He's upset that we actually pay heed to the United States Constitution.

And he shouldn't.

See, Colorado Newsline, where this comes from, is part of a non-profit called States Newsroom. What States Newsroom does is basically pretend to be unbiased news sources in various states, all while advancing progressive causes like gun control.

Yet they can do that. They're protected by the First Amendment's freedom of the press and freedom of speech. They don't have to be unbiased or answer to anyone but those funding them for their refusal to be an unbiased media outlet.

That could also be called "free speech fundamentalism" and an argument could be made about how States Newsroom's so-called journalism, which was referred to by the leftist New York Times as "bought by people with a political agenda," shouldn't be permitted.

I don't buy into that, but I can see the argument being made and I can see it swaying people.

They don't have to worry about that because the words in the Bill of Rights mean something. 

Something Colorado Newsline's editor might want to consider going forward.

In the meantime, this "firearm fundamentalist" will continue enjoying his AR-15s, his AK-47s, and any other gun this editor thinks I shouldn't be allowed to own.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member