Re what Philip says about “become tyranny of the masses” this is one of the things I think both our countries have become guilty of, with the media setting the political agenda and politicians basing their policies not on what they think is right, but on what the opinion polls say will get them elected. Or am I just being cynical ?

Coming back to the gun debate however, one question that has always bugged me is why Canada has such a low level of gun deaths compared to USA ? Is it true they dont allow people to own hand guns but allow rifles etc without toomuch trouble ? Surely that would satisfy the right to bear arms ? As an ex soldier I know if it came to defending my property and family with a gun I would rather have a 12 gauge shotgun than any hand gun !

It doesn’t take multiple PhDs in history, sociology, and political science to understand where the 2nd Amendment came from… it was born of the fear of another government army enforcing tyrannical rule over The People. The fear of a standing army, and of a people disarmed and unable to defend itself drove the founders to draft this piece of work into the document that was to shape our country into the bastion of freedom and self-sufficiency that it became. The Government should fear the People, not the other way around.

The argument that folks like Nick put forth sounds logical at first, but it holds that the Constitution has become less relevant over time, and that the assurances of freedoms it provides are either no longer necessary or no longer valid. Nick captures that very well with the following, ironic statement:

“On another point, however, why should current Americans be held to account by a document written hundreds of years ago in a different time, with different conditions. Surely what is more important is what the majority of the population want right now, thats called Democracy isnt it ?”

In an ideal world, what Nick describes may be “true democracy”, but in reality it would quickly become tyranny of the masses. Following the “majority rules” policy we would quickly lose the INDIVIDUAL freedoms guaranteed by the constitution… freedoms of religion, speech, the press, and yes… the freedom to protect ourselves through strength of arms.

At the same time that the Constitution itself was being drafted, Thomas Jefferson warned against putting too much power into the hands of the uneducated masses, because they simply are not prepared to make appropriate decisions. The masses are too easily led astray, whipped into a frenzy by skilled manipulators to work any number of wicked errands.

The Constitution is still extremely relevant because it helps to counter that threat. It serves to constrain the uneducated masses, the majority rule, so that the freedoms that made this country great are not trampled by short-term expediencies. This is why we don’t have a State Religion. It’s why we don’t have a State-run Press.

Every part of the Constitution is critical to the American way of life, and if we begin to dissect any single part, if we pare away at the Amendments, then the whole thing becomes meaningless. It is about Essential Liberties, without which we are not, truly, a Free Nation.