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, "…the 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 armed…Everyone 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. --30--
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. >>
I did not see a link I ran across the article on www.delphi.com/ab-hunting.
But this is why they should be called
Government miseducation cell's
not public schools.
www.jbs.org www.gunowners.org
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, "…the 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 armed…Everyone 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. --30--
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. >>
I did not see a link I ran across the article on www.delphi.com/ab-hunting.
But this is why they should be called
Government miseducation cell's
not public schools.
www.jbs.org www.gunowners.org
I've stayed out of this because YOU did. Now if YOU start.... 