“She’s not a girl who misses much…”
Good lord, I was hoping this week would go by without finding myself being sucked into a conversation about the Second Amendment, but the temptation is too great. Rather than quote a right-wing gun nut, however, let me point to an article from the left that I find ridiculous :
Fifteen unambiguous words are all that would be required to quell the American-as-apple-pie cycle of gun violence that has now tearfully enshrined Virginia Tech in the record book of mass murder. Here are the 15 words that would deliver a mortal wound to our bang-bang culture of death: “The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”
. . .
Since the NRA would probably claim that legislation to ban private possession of atomic weapons is part of a plot to destroy the Second Amendment, maybe it is time for liberals to stop denying the charge. Authenticity and truth-telling often work better in politics than weaselly and palpably insincere statements like, “No one is more dedicated a hunter and lover of the Second Amendment than I am, but…” If gun-control advocates are going to be hanged in effigy for their views, they should at least have the momentary enjoyment of making a speech from the scaffold expressing their true sentiments. Without having to endlessly fret about the constitutionality of any regulatory effort to reduce gun-related deaths, liberals might be able to directly discuss the benefits of such legislation in terms that even open-minded members of the NRA might appreciate.
Uhhh…what? Even when I find myself sorta agreeing with Walter Shapiro here, the article’s tone and unfortunate use of the second person is just going to cause more problems than it solves. This article will be quoted by NRA members for the next decade as “proof” that liberals really want to take away their guns. Thanks a lot, buddy.
The biggest flaw with Shapiro’s article is that he concedes the rhetorical ground to the NRA by seeming to agree that the Second Amendment prohibits gun control :
Without the Second Amendment, firearms could be regulated by the federal government in the same fashion as any other potentially dangerous devices, from coal-mine elevators to single-engine planes.
. . .
When even the most modest reforms — such as regulating gun sales between private individuals — are ridiculed as radical nostrums, it is hard for politicians to justify squandering their political capital on a seemingly hopeless cause. Frustrated by the constraints imposed by the right-to-bear-arms language in the Second Amendment, proponents of gun-control legislation have always worked on the margins. “Close the gun-show loophole” is not likely to be remembered as one of the most stirring slogans in political history.
Okay, how’s this for a “stirring slogan”? The Second Amendment was designed to protect America, not your violent hobby.
The modern understanding of the Second Amendment is completely divorced from the original meaning of the constitution (I guess this makes me a “strict constructionist”). I know I’m not the first to point this out, but anyone with a moderate understanding of the English language would recognize this as a conditional statement :
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.
Those commas are there for a reason. The Second Amendment wasn’t added for the benefit of hunters or gun collectors or stressed-out businessmen who need to “let off some steam” at the shooting range or the terrified citizen who only feels safe with a pistol under his pillow. The Second Amendment was added to ensure “the security of a free state”. As far as I’m concerned, if you want a gun so bad, join the Army and become part of the “well regulated Mlitia”. They’re hiring.
7 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Yes, exactly. The second amendment was there to provide for the common defense in absence of a standing national (or state by state) army. Period. End of sentence. You want to carry a gun and defend citizens from the “eeee-vil doers”? Join the army. Or the navy, coast guard, national guard, marines, air force, cia, nsa, or any other branch of the military establishment. But don’t tell me that you need a gun to stay safe from other (crazy) gun owners.
Comment by Miz Shoes — April 20, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Now I am not personally advocating that “that every man be armed,” but the idea that the framers only included the 2nd Amendment in lieu of a standing army to defend against foreign threats is simply not true. The 2nd Amendment was also included as a doomsday provision in the event that the citizenry would have to defend itself from a tyrannical government. The Army, Navy, Coast Guard, National Guard, Marines, Air Force, CIA, NSA and any other branch of the military establishment are obviously part of the potentially tyrannical government—kind of defeats the purpose.
Comment by Guav — April 20, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Thanks Greg. What I keep coming back to with the 2nd amendment is the ‘well regulated’. A militia is not a standing army,as Miz Shoes notes. Maybe more like the National Guard, though they seem like army-lite to me. We don’t really have a militia except for those guys in Idaho & Montana, and they’re certainly not well regulated, or contributing to the security of a free state. So it seems to me that the second amendment demands regulations. Like before you can own a gun you must demonstrate that you know how, and how not to use it. Wasn’t teaching gun safety the NRA’s mission once?
Comment by Eric Farnsworth — April 20, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
There are more than 51,000 NRA Certified Instructors in the country, and the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program has been used by 25,000 schools and civic groups to teach kids basic gun safety (such as if you see a gun, don’t touch it, and go tell an adult). In fact, I don’t know of a single gun safety program taught or sponsored by any of the major gun control groups.
Comment by Guav — April 20, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.”
This is no longer true.
Comment by Kamachanda — April 22, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
No, it is still quite true. Take a look at Iraq, for example. The proliferation of weapons stolen from pre-war caches is a prett but factor in the difficulty we’re having over there. If nothing else, it shows that a bunch of disorganized hicks with rifles and fertilizer bombs can, indeed, effectively resist a powerful occupying force.
Comment by hyzmarca — April 25, 2007 @ 10:45 am
best subject line evar. just sayin’.
doo dee ooo dee ooo doo …. oh yeah
a soap impression of his wife which he ate
Comment by joel hanes — April 30, 2007 @ 6:59 pm