When it comes to championing Constitutional rights, the Republican party is the ambassador. Most recently through the construction of the Tea Party, Ted Cruz's Presidential Campaign, and the polarizing debate over gun control and the rights granted in the Second Amendment, the "Constitutionalist's" have found themselves at the forefront of much of our political, social and legal discourse over the past 5 years.

The debate over the second amendment, which grants every U.S. citizen the right to bear arms, specifically expressed as being necessary when standing up to a "tyrannical government", has risen to the limelight recently as gun crimes and violence have skyrocketed since the turn of the century, and political and social justice leaders are taking a closer examination of the amendment, what it entails, and whether or not after 225 years, the rights granted are now archaic and outright inappropriate with the swift advancements made in the field of weaponry.

The individuals who view social issues progressively will make the argument that this is an Amendment, and therefore was placed into law with the expectation that at some point it may need to be amended. When the amendment was written, the United States was a 15 year old country, just getting off the ground, and still trying to separate itself from the restrictive and confining big-government policies of Great Britain that, in many ways, was indeed tyrannical in its dealings with the United States as its colony. So when the Amendment was written, it was certainly appropriate seeing as the U.S. was still recovering from war with the tyrannical government of Great Britain.

For progressives, the need for stricter background checks for those who want to own a gun is necessary, individuals on the FBI's 'No Fly List' shouldn't be able to purchase a gun, basic training for prospective gun owners needs to be required, and while self defense should still be respected and granted as a component of our Second Amendment Right's, a large-scale repeal on access to high-powered machine guns and other weapons that are good for mass killings, and not so much self defense. Progressives, on this issue, tend to be content with, and trusting of, our police force and military to protect us from major attacks that would require a high powered assault rifle.

Inversely, the individuals who view social issues conservatively will defend their Second Amendment rights to the grave, thinking than any form of government intervention is a demonstrable infringement on their constitutional rights as an American citizen, despite the obvious problems with the widespread access to, and use of, high powered weaponry in today's day in age. They believe that we as citizens need our own police force, and that good people with guns stop bad people with guns, implying that everyone should be equipped with a gun, and trusted to take care of the "bad guys" on the extremely rare chance that they are actually in a situation where it's necessary.

On the topic of Constitutional rights, the tables are completely turned on one specific topic concerning arguably the most integral of all of our Constitutional rights, that being the right to freedom of speech.

San Francisco 49'ers Quarterback Colin Kaepernick has found himself in the sports and news headlines these past few days because of his refusal to stand for the National Anthem prior to his games, because as explicated by Kaepernick, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Now cue the Constitution-protecting Republicans to defend his First Amendment rights to do this, right?

Wrong.

The vast majority of the individuals who so adamantly defend the Second Amendment and universal gun ownership, just as adamantly condemned Kaepernick's choice to take a stance against racial injustice here in the United States, and some people even went as far to express their disgust in the fact that he has any legal right to do this in the first place.

The hypocrisy I see here is that a vast majority of the constituents in, and representatives of, a major political party defend easy and unfettered access to something that plays a role in thousands of deaths each year in this country.

However, when it comes to a person of color speaking out against racial injustice and oppression, the response by the mostly white demographic of the Republican party and Constitutionalist's is almost unanimously disgust, derision, and belittlement. They call him out for disrespecting the flag, and the American military personnel, when he has articulated that he is simply speaking out against the oppressive practices rooted in this country that are still pervasive today.

Guns kill people. Supporting the uninhibited access to, and use of, high powered assault rifles is to support the perpetuation of gun violence and gun-inflicted death, while also making our country more dangerous. Kaepernick is advocating for a cause that is still all too present and still affects everyone in this country who is actually willing to acknowledge that systemic racism and racial injustices are still existent. Supporting Kaepernick, his cause, and his message, is to support a movement to reduce deaths in this country, and to create a safer environment for everyone who's living in it.

My personal sentiment is this: Be consistent. These self-proclaimed Constitutionalist's like their guns, so they are inherently passionate about the Second Amendment. These same Constitutionalist's aren't affected by racial injustice and marginalization, so they inherently don't care if someone asserts their distaste for certain debilitating aspects of this country, and they respond to these outcries by telling them that they should just "leave" or "shut their mouth" if they don't like the oppressive practices that they are experiencing everyday. Their personal sentiments are disregarded, and attacked, implying that their First Amendment right to free speech doesn't really apply or isn't really important.

The hypocrisy is saddening. The same group that so vehemently supports and defends their Constitutional rights to own and carry something so deadly and responsible for widespread violence and death, will just as ardently disavow the Constitutional rights of someone like Colin Kaepernick, even though what he is advocating for is a society that is fair, just, and safe for all who are apart of it.

I do not claim to be one of these "Constitutionalist's," because I'm not. But what I am is someone who thinks logically and reasonably. And a movement that is intending to save lives will always attain my support and defense. A movement intending to give almost anyone access to something that has caused so many deaths, will not.

If you're going to claim to be a Constitutionalist, at least defend and protect each and every right that is conveyed in the Constitution. And if you're going to pick and choose which Amendments you are going to defend, at least choose the ones that bring forth a message of safety and equality. Not further violence and death.