Distorting The 2A

WAGCEVP

New member
http://www.liberzine.com/burniethompson/000824secondam.htm

August 24, 2000

Distorting the Second Amendment
by Burnie Thompson

While visiting a good friend who teaches 8th grade at a local public
school, I decided to peruse through the history textbook, "America:
Pathways to the Present," published by Prentice Hall. On page 91 there is
a table outlining The Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, the authors
tell us, "Guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and
petition."

The textbook goes on to explain the significance of the Second Amendment.
It "Guarantees the individual states the right to maintain a militia." I
went through the roof.

James Madison authored The Bill of Rights to limit the federal
government's authority to interfere with the individual liberty of the
people of the United States. The Second Amendment declares, "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."

It is currently popular among our intellectual elite to ascribe the
protections of the 2nd Amendment away from the people and to the State.
This is not done in any of the other original 10 Amendments. Can you
imagine anyone ascribing the protections of the First Amendment's
guarantee of free speech to the state and away from the people? The notion
is preposterous.

Now we are told that the Second Amendment does not guarantee our
unalienable right to protect our lives and the lives of our family with
firearms. In lawyerly doublespeak, they insist the only Amendment that
does not limit the power of the central government from infringing on our
individual liberties is the one that declares, "äthe right of the people
to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

It is one thing to argue that the Second Amendment is bad policy. Though I
certainly disagree, at least it is a respectable position to hold. What is
disingenuous is the effort to convolute, twist and distort its meaning.

Daniel D. Polsby, Professor of law at Northwestern University has written,
"no ambiguity at all surrounds the attitude of the constitutional
generation concerning the 'right to keep and bear arms.' To put the matter
bluntly, the Founders of the United States were what we would nowadays
call gun nuts. 'One loves to possess arms,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to
President Washington."

Polsby continues, "Patrick Henry declared that 'the great object is that
every man be armedäEveryone who is able may have a gun.' And James
Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, recognized 'the advantage of being
armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation,' whose tyrannical governments are 'afraid to trust the people with
arms.'"

Al Gore promises that if he is elected president he will require photo
identification for gun owners. The willingness for Americans to relinquish
their liberties in exchange for promises of safety is alarming, especially
considering the string of broken promises by our increasingly
paternalistic government.

With already more than 20,000 gun control laws on the books across the
country, contemporary liberals are convinced we need more to end
indiscriminate copycat carnage with firearms. Everything from the
government limiting the amount or type of firearms we are permitted to
purchase, to high technology safety devices to raising the minimum age of
purchasing firearms up to 25.

The federal gun buyback program is also a sham. How is it a "buyback"
program when the federal government never owned the firearms in the first
place? This sneaky, subconscious campaign implies that the government is
the true owner of the means to our self-protection.

Already the sale of inexpensive guns ("Saturday Night Specials") is
outlawed in California. Consider the regressive nature of this policy, as
it is the lower income folks living in high crime neighborhoods that are
the first to feel the affect. The wealthy can afford elaborate security
systems, armed guards or more expensive guns.

Professor John Lott and Criminologist Gary Kleck estimate 2.5 million
instances annually whereby citizens use guns to repel criminals, and
almost always without ever firing a shot. It makes sense that criminals
would prefer to meet less resistance, doesn't it?

By distorting the purpose of the Second Amendment -- which ensures freedom
through a people capable of defending its liberties -- the gun control
crowd has compromised our security and that of our families. It should not
come as a surprise that Americans are handing over their liberties -- even
Constitutionally enumerated rights -- little by little.

Just pick up a public school textbook and read what it has to say about
The Bill of Rights.

A graduate student at the Annenberg School of Journalism at USC, Burnie
Thompson is editor of A Closer Look and has written guest columns for The
Orange County Register.

""The constitutions of most of our States assert that
all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right
and duty to be at all times armed;..."

Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5,
1824.



------------------
When women are disarmed, a rapist will never hear - Stop or I'll shoot!
Armed Citizens SAVE Lives!
<A HREF="http://www.wagc.com
http://sites.netscape.net/wagcga/homepage

Gun" TARGET=_blank>http://www.wagc.com
http://sites.netscape.net/wagcga/homepage

Gun</A> Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum
est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands")
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
 
Back
Top