Actions of the Few Outweigh the Rights of the Many

The concept of a republic is where the majority rule. They elect officials who are supposed to carry out the directions of the majority. At least that was the way the Framers intended America to be.

However, the general trend in our nation is that the actions of the few outweigh the rights of the many and I’m sure you can name some instances where this has happened. Consider how many lawsuits have been filed and won because one person was offended by the actions of many.

Take the 1947 Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education where the high court declared there to be a wall of separation between church and state because of the complaints of a few people.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms – July 6, 1775

In 1962, the Supreme Court case of Engel v. Vitale, the high court banned prayer in all public schools because of the complaints of a few people.

In 1963, the Supreme Court case of Abington v. Schempp, the high court banned Bible reading in all public schools.

Last year the Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the high court ruled state constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man with one woman were discriminatory and unconstitutional, opening the door to same-sex marriage becoming legal throughout the United States. Homosexuals are a small minority of the nation’s population, their constant whining and complaining was successful in over ruling the views of the majority.

I’ve seen the same thing happen in the workplace. One place I worked at, a couple of employees abused a perk the company extended to every employee, but because of the two people, the company responded by removing the perk from everyone. I’m sure many of us have experienced the same thing.

Once again the rights of the many are being challenged because of the actions of the few.

Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke (R-District 32) first introduced LB 289 a year ago. The bill states:

“A BILL FOR AN ACT relating to firearms; to amend sections 14-102, 15-255, 16-227, 17-556, and 18-1703, Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska; to prohibit certain regulation of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories by cities and villages as prescribed; and to repeal the original sections.”

Basically, the bill would allow state gun laws to supersede more restrictive gun laws passed by counties and cities. The purpose behind the bill is to standardize gun laws throughout the state.

An example is that current Nebraska law requires someone to be 18 years of age or older in order to possess a handgun, 21 years of age to purchase a handgun. In 1993, Omaha passed an ordinance raising the legal age for handgun possession to 21 years of age. If LB 289 were to pass and become law, it would nullify the Omaha ordinance.

John Wells, President of the Omaha Police Officers Association has spoken out against Ebke’s bill, claiming:

“Frankly, the proposed changes arguably come across not so much as pro-gun, but pro-gang.”

The bill is being debated this week in the Nebraska Senate, however, Sen. Ernie Chambers (New Alliance Party – Omaha) entered a motion to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee but that motion was defeated. Chambers then turned to a filibuster to prevent the bill from moving any further. Proponents of the bill will need to gather 33 votes in order to break the filibuster and send the bill to cloture. If they cannot muster enough votes, the bill will be killed for this legislative session.

Wells, Chambers and other opponents of the bill are using the actions of teenage gang members in Omaha regardless of the restrictions they are placing on the Second Amendment rights of the majority of Omaha’s residents.

It’s the same mindset that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg and others are trying to push on the American people. They claim that the reason behind their efforts to pass more restrictive gun and ammunition control laws is because of the actions of a few mass shooters. They are willing to violate the Second Amendment rights of every American because of the actions of a few wackos and terrorists.

How many more of our rights, freedoms and privileges are we going to lose because of the actions of a few people? This is not the American way as intended by the Framers.

Dave Jolly

R.L. David Jolly holds a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and an M.S. in Biology – Population Genetics. He has worked in a number of fields, giving him a broad perspective on life, business, economics and politics. He is a very conservative Christian, husband, father and grandfather who cares deeply for his Savior, family and the future of our troubled nation.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.