The rule of law or the rule of man, where are we headed? Throughout the history of the world probably 98% of all the humans that have ever lived have suffered under the rule of man, be it king, queen, dictator or some other person who presided over others and whose word was law.
The law was applied as the ruler saw fit and could change from one day to the next. Subjects could not plan for the future because one would never know what the future might hold at the hand of arbitrary rule.
About 225 years ago in America a novel experiment took place. Our founders determined that we would no longer be ruled by man but by written law. That law was to be relatively stable and would be supreme no matter what men were in government. That supreme law was the U.S. Constitution. Since that day our public officials have sworn to support and defend that document.
On April 6, there was a "town hall" meeting hosted by two of our state level representatives, Senator Gail Schwartz and District 61 Representative Millie Hamner. The main topic of discussion was education but at the end it turned to their votes on the four gun control measures that were recently passed and their affirmative vote on all of these laws. Both Schwartz and Hamner stated that they "felt it was the right thing to do" and Hamner said she didn't believe it violated the Second Amendment or our Constitution. The Second Amendment clearly states the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." My American College Dictionary defines infringe as "to trespass or encroach." It then defines encroach as "to make gradual inroads or to trespass upon ... the rights of another especially ... by gradual advances." That is precisely what these two women have done by their votes and in so doing have violated their oath of office.
In the conversation Millie Hamner repeatedly said that our disagreement with her action was due to a difference of opinion. In essence she was claiming that her opinion (the rule of man) was more important than the clearly stated directive of the U.S. Constitution (the rule of law). She apparently wants to take us back to the days of kings and dictators.
Such an attitude is un-American, unconstitutional and unacceptable. It is regressive and can only take us back to the situation we found ourselves in before our forefathers fought to throw off oppression and give us individual freedom and liberty. She stated she felt her vote would give us a safer Colorado. We all need to realize that with freedom comes risk and responsibility. Benjamin Franklin said, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Look it up.
All who love freedom and the "rule of law" that made our nation the most prosperous and powerful nation in history need to work diligently to preserve what we have inherited and that would include seeing people like Gail Schwartz and Millie Hamner never be elected to public office again.