I R A T E  D O G
Revisiting the Bowmore Oracle

I don’t know why I find it necessary to read the Kansas City Scar’s “Letters” on the Opinion
page.   It’s really becoming masochistic.   The utter disbelief and total frustration I feel after
reading some of the letters compels me to make yet another pilgrimage to Mount Rimaan’s for
an audience with the Oracle of Bowmore.

Many letters champion the need to re-write the Second Amendment.   It’s outdated, they say.   
The writers are positive that our Founding Fathers would agree to some changes, primarily
because the only weapons available at that time were muskets and swords.   Others opine
that we need stricter gun control laws, annual mental health evaluations, universal
background checks or a national firearm registry.   In their pipe-dream view of reality, gun
violence would cease to exist if we had no guns.  Unfortunately, criminals –by definition- don’t
follow the law.

Would these same people consider re-writing the First Amendment because the only thing
available to the Founders was a printing press?   Would they be agreeable to changing the
First to allow the establishment of a new religion of environmentalism?   How about removing
that part about petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances or the right of the
people to peaceably assemble?   With free computer programs like Skype, Instant Messenger,
Facebook, Twitter, etcetera we don’t really need to gather in one spot anymore, do we?

Maybe these letter writers would prefer fewer restrictions on “the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures” (the Fourth Amendment.)  Perhaps they’d be fine with a search warrant that said “we
don’t know what we’re looking for, so we’re going to search everywhere and seize whatever
we find.”

How about “pleading the Fifth?”   Shouldn’t someone accused of a crime be forced to tell the
truth?   Why does a criminal have a right to not incriminate himself?

Would these advocates for changing the Second Amendment want to change the Sixth?   They
could keep the speedy trial part, but do away with informing the accused of the “nature and
cause of the accusation” and the part about the right “to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.”   It would certainly shorten it (and ensure a “speedy
trial.”)

And while we’re at it, the Seventh Amendment is REALLY outdated.   “In suits at common law,
where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United
States, than according to the rules of the common law.”   Twenty dollars?!   Come on, now, that
doesn’t even pay for a tank of gas!   (Yet another thing the Founders weren’t aware of.)   Let’s
get rid of it entirely.

If twenty dollars was the threshold back in 1776, then the “Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed” prohibition of the Eight Amendment needs a re-write,
too!   Hell, a parking ticket costs more than that!   The Obummercare “penalty” is certainly
much larger!   Maybe we should re-define excessive as twenty thousand dollars.   How about
two hundred thousand dollars?   We’ve already re-defined “cruel and unusual punishments.”

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.”   Seriously, now.   If you’re prohibited from drinking
more than 16 ounces of soda, or eating regularly at McDonald’s, or forced to pay fees for
producing carbon emissions every time you exhale, and required to use a specific type of
light bulb in your home, what “other” rights are left?   Get rid of the Ninth Amendment, too.

As far as the Tenth Amendment is concerned, “The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states” have already been taken away from the
“states respectively” and the people by an obscenely obese centralized government.

So, after my most recent pilgrimage to the Bowmore Oracle, my question to these anti-Second
Amendment letter writers is:   Why stop at the Second Amendment?   Let’s take all ten
amendments in the Bill of Rights and “modernize” the whole, antiquated shebang.

Maybe these people think that “shall NOT be infringed” was merely a suggestion.
 
Then again, maybe that’s their intention.   

Maybe –just maybe- they know that the Second Amendment is the only reason the other nine
in the Bill of Rights even exist.
H O M E
March 14th, 2013