The Daily Views ~ OP/ED
The anti-gun folks fire back
http://dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/2001/01/23/opinion/GUNN23.htm
by Michael D. Barnes
Handgun Control
When Handgun Control first announced its opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft as attorney general, we found one of the most
disturbing elements of his record to be his support of the "insurrectionist" view of the Second Amendment, based on a misreading of John
Madison's writings in No. 46 of the Federalist Papers.
We said that this view, championed by, among others, Timothy McVeigh, holds that the Constitution allows individuals to take up arms
against the government if it becomes, in the gun owner's view, "tyrannical" or "despotic."
Now come John Ashcroft's defenders like gun-lobby apologist John Lott (OpEd, Jan. 17), who use the straw man of McVeigh's actions to
obscure the ideological basis and uncontestable facts that are at the heart of this claim. For McVeigh, the "tyranny" of the Waco siege was
enough to justify violence against the government.
While proponents of Ashcroft's "insurrectionist" interpretation often cite carefully selected sentences and phrases from the Constitution's
Framers as authority for their view, those passages are wrenched out of context. Upon closer examination, they refute, rather than support,
their view.
The reference to Federalist No. 46 - on which Ashcroft relied in support of his assertion that the United States Constitution provides the
American people a constitutional right to overthrow, with arms, any tyrannical government - is a perfect example.
Beyond the absurdity of the proposition that the Constitution would specifically prohibit treason, and then protect the right to engage in it,
the statement Ashcroft relied upon, "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation," is taken out of context. In fact, Madison made clear that his meaning was precisely the opposite of that suggested by Ashcroft:
Madison believed that Americans' "advantage" was to be armed in militias organized by the states.
The sentence, in full reads:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
That is, Madison, in Federalist No. 46, is arguing that the Constitution does not strip the states of their militia and concedes that a strong
militia "of subordinate governments" also known as state governments are important counterparts to a regular standing army. So, Federalist
No. 46 actually contradicts Ashcroft's interpretation of the Second Amendment; it certainly does not support it.
It is quite ironic that Mr. Lott chooses to attack HCI and defend John Ashcroft in a newspaper published in the birthplace of American
democracy. It is also a shame that it has to be subjected to yet another of John Lott's innumerable distortions. Mr. Lott specifically removed
six words when he quoted me in order to distort my point. What I actually said was, "Perhaps most disturbing of all, Mr. Ashcroft apparently
believes in the insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment, the same theory subscribed to by Timothy McVeigh."
Mr. Ashcroft has certainly never advocated violence against our government. But this issue is not just abstract argument. Who decides when
the government has crossed the line into tyranny? Extremists like McVeigh feel the time has already come. Militia groups already make this
argument in court to defend themselves against charges of illegal possession of machine guns and assault weapons.
John Ashcroft is in line to become the next attorney general of the United States. If he truly believes in this troubling interpretation of the
Second Amendment, we hope he reconsiders in light of what it means to the rule of law. There may be more like McVeigh who are out
there.
Michael D. Barnes is president of Handgun Control and a former congressman from Maryland.
The anti-gun folks fire back
http://dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/2001/01/23/opinion/GUNN23.htm
by Michael D. Barnes
Handgun Control
When Handgun Control first announced its opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft as attorney general, we found one of the most
disturbing elements of his record to be his support of the "insurrectionist" view of the Second Amendment, based on a misreading of John
Madison's writings in No. 46 of the Federalist Papers.
We said that this view, championed by, among others, Timothy McVeigh, holds that the Constitution allows individuals to take up arms
against the government if it becomes, in the gun owner's view, "tyrannical" or "despotic."
Now come John Ashcroft's defenders like gun-lobby apologist John Lott (OpEd, Jan. 17), who use the straw man of McVeigh's actions to
obscure the ideological basis and uncontestable facts that are at the heart of this claim. For McVeigh, the "tyranny" of the Waco siege was
enough to justify violence against the government.
While proponents of Ashcroft's "insurrectionist" interpretation often cite carefully selected sentences and phrases from the Constitution's
Framers as authority for their view, those passages are wrenched out of context. Upon closer examination, they refute, rather than support,
their view.
The reference to Federalist No. 46 - on which Ashcroft relied in support of his assertion that the United States Constitution provides the
American people a constitutional right to overthrow, with arms, any tyrannical government - is a perfect example.
Beyond the absurdity of the proposition that the Constitution would specifically prohibit treason, and then protect the right to engage in it,
the statement Ashcroft relied upon, "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation," is taken out of context. In fact, Madison made clear that his meaning was precisely the opposite of that suggested by Ashcroft:
Madison believed that Americans' "advantage" was to be armed in militias organized by the states.
The sentence, in full reads:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
That is, Madison, in Federalist No. 46, is arguing that the Constitution does not strip the states of their militia and concedes that a strong
militia "of subordinate governments" also known as state governments are important counterparts to a regular standing army. So, Federalist
No. 46 actually contradicts Ashcroft's interpretation of the Second Amendment; it certainly does not support it.
It is quite ironic that Mr. Lott chooses to attack HCI and defend John Ashcroft in a newspaper published in the birthplace of American
democracy. It is also a shame that it has to be subjected to yet another of John Lott's innumerable distortions. Mr. Lott specifically removed
six words when he quoted me in order to distort my point. What I actually said was, "Perhaps most disturbing of all, Mr. Ashcroft apparently
believes in the insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment, the same theory subscribed to by Timothy McVeigh."
Mr. Ashcroft has certainly never advocated violence against our government. But this issue is not just abstract argument. Who decides when
the government has crossed the line into tyranny? Extremists like McVeigh feel the time has already come. Militia groups already make this
argument in court to defend themselves against charges of illegal possession of machine guns and assault weapons.
John Ashcroft is in line to become the next attorney general of the United States. If he truly believes in this troubling interpretation of the
Second Amendment, we hope he reconsiders in light of what it means to the rule of law. There may be more like McVeigh who are out
there.
Michael D. Barnes is president of Handgun Control and a former congressman from Maryland.