At the risk of boring the few regular readers I have accumulated on Political Realities, let me touch once again on the 2nd Amendment and the all-out assault against it that is presently taking place. To be sure, it is a highly charged debate. Many liberals believe no one should have guns, while conservatives believe it is our God-given right to keep and bear arms. And that’s not even considering the 2nd Amendment, put into place to protect those rights. Let’s review what the 2nd Amendment says, shall we?
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.
The United States Supreme Court has already said that the federal government could not infringe upon that right, but that the states could place reasonable restrictions upon the ownership of guns. That means could have 50 different versions of legislation that either enhances or restricts gun ownership, depending on which state you live in. We have already witnessed history being made as New York Governor Andrew Cumo pushed through a very restrictive gun-control bill. He was so anxious to get it enshrined into law that he forgot to exempt the men and women who are members of the various police departments across the state. Maryland seems to be next in line to restrict gun ownership. Which state will be the first to attempt to ban guns completely?
On the other side of the spectrum, you have states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas, who not only believe strongly in our 2nd Amendment rights, they have taken steps to protect those rights. I mention those states, not because they are the only states where the 2nd Amendment is cherished, but because I live in Oklahoma and work in Arkansas. And Texas, will everyone knows about Texas. If liberals can celebrate gun control legislation in the states that feel it necessary to pass such restrictive and unnecessary laws, then please allow me to celebrate when states decide it is right and proper to protect the 2nd Amendment and the gun ownership rights of their citizens.
I was watching a video of a 2nd Amendment rally in New York last night and someone was interviewing two women who had come to the rally to support their 2nd Amendment rights. They were asked various questions about how they felt about the 2nd Amendment and if there should be any restrictions placed upon their rights to keep and bear arms. At the end, one of them spoke up and plainly said she was considering moving out of the state, preferably to a state that was more supportive of the 2nd Amendment. That started me thinking even stronger along these lines.
As more and more states begin to draw their lines in the sand, on one side or the other of the 2nd Amendment, is it possible that some states who restrict those rights will see a population decrease? Could it be that many Americans feel so strongly about their 2nd Amendment rights that they will be willing to pack their belongings and move to a state that will be friendlier to the fact that they own guns? It has happened before, when some states have placed such a tax burden on their citizens. Those citizens decided to follow their money and moved to states that were less inclined to tax them to death. I can’t help but wonder if some Americans who believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment will not follow the same course.
It is a known fact that states such as Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas, as well as a big chunk of the South and some of the West, are much friendlier to the idea of gun ownership by their citizens. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a sudden population increase as Americans decide to move to where they can feel more like real Americans. And to be honest, I wouldn’t blame them for doing just that. In fact, I would welcome them to our state.
What do you think? Is that idea so unreasonable or far-fetched?