Posted on 01/25/2007 8:27:58 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
The arguments favoring the private ownership of handguns in this country are based on two myths.
The first myth is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees private citizens the right to own handguns.
The fact is this. The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states "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." The National Rifle Association has succeeded brilliantly and cynically in convincing the public that the amendment consists only of the part that follows the comma.
Let us consider the context within which it was written. The country comprised only a loose arrangement of 13 separate colonies trying to get free from Britain. There was no strong central government that could raise and finance a national army. The leader, George Washington, had to rely on the willingness of each colony to send its militia of private citizens, each man carrying his own rifle, to join the effort.
It was a momentous struggle against a strong British army and its paid Hessian companions. It was only the heroic efforts of Washington's tattered volunteers that prevailed and eventually formed what would become the United States of America.
Only then did a collection of militias become what we have long known as a national militia. We call it the National Guard.
The second myth is that every private citizen needs a handgun to protect his loved ones and property against intrusion by burglars. This is a pernicious untruth. As a longtime trauma surgeon at Harborview Medical Center, the main center for treatment of all kinds of wounds and injuries, I cannot recall a single patient who had been shot by the resident of a private home while attempting to burglarize it. I believe my surgical colleagues would agree with that assessment. It is far more likely that a young boy finds a loaded handgun in his parents' bedside table and either he or a playmate gets shot while playing with it.
The other common use of handguns in private homes takes place during acts of domestic violence or drug disputes. Except in cases of convenience store holdups, gunshot wounds are administered by a family member or someone else known to the victim. We documented this well in a New England Journal of Medicine article we published as part of a comparison between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., regarding the use of handguns.
Those are the two myths responsible for the ubiquitous presence and use of handguns in Seattle and elsewhere in this country. They attest to the ignorance of our citizens and our laziness in not even reading and learning the history of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
After all, it is only a single sentence. That should not be too much for anyone.
The obvious truth is that only police and other law-enforcement officials should be allowed to have handguns in this country. Private citizens have no legitimate use or need for them, and they should be barred from possessing them. Period
Shame on us, for acquiescing to the NRA and to our own ignorance. We need to correct this dangerous condition.
[Clifford M. Herman, M.D., is a professor emeritus of surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine.]
The militia the ammendment is referring to, IS the private ciitzen. The National Guard, is the government. WHO PROTECTS THE CITIZEN FROM THE GOVERNMENT, when the government turns agaisn't the citizens? Self-defense is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT, not a government given right. The means of self-defense for the citizen, is the ability to arm themselves against the possibility of an abusive government. Our government exists and is subordinate to the people, not the way you would have it. Thats what makes Americans different from everyone else on this planet, and makes us the Light of Freedom. Thats why so many people come TO this country. Thats why we've remained free for 231 years, inspite of some people who can't grasp the concept of self-defense. No government on this earth will ever take MY GUN, without a "Fight to the Death".
At the end of the day it's about power. The people who are attracted to life in government always want more of it form themselves, but the framers wanted a check on that, and that check is the second amendment.
Yep, and with an acute case of "God Complex".
"Yes, Doctor, please... tell us what we should do. We mere mortals can't read the words of the Bill of Rights for ourselves, and must rely upon your vast wisdom to guide us."
Was that sarcastic enough? ;-)
No? Well, how about...
"Khan... I'm laughing at the 'superior intellect'."
American Freedom was won by men with guns, and it will remain free only as long as we still have them.
"...nor will we have resources to equip them..."
It says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Where does it say National Guard??
Watch "High-tech Weapons" on Discovery and picture Hezbollah with that stuff.
Frightening!
This guy is inept at this gun-grabbing agenda. He's too brazen and in-your face in his constitutional mis-reading.
Amusing how he yammers how it is misleading to stress just those words in the 2nd Amendment past the "comma". I.e, the RIGHTS part! To wit:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Apparently this doofus thinks the Framers somehow MISSPOKE.
He also seems to not understand that all of the Bill of Rights are to guarantee those individual rights. If it was a protection for the STATE well then it wouldn't hardly need to be in there. It already has the coercive power.
Oops. The Barfer was "in there" sorry. Never mind.
Ah, the myth that "the militia" means the National Guard, and that "well regulated" means under government control.
This person is laughable when he tries to assert his "knowledge" of the "context of the 2nd Amendment", when there is so much evidence from the time of the "context" that he's dead wrong.
Where's this guy's proposed Constitutional Amendment, if he thinks he's right?
OK Clifford, let's do just that.
Your argument is that the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the government would be able to arm itself. How silly!
Our founding fathers had just fought a war against a tyrannical and well armed government. The founders had NO fear that the government would not be able to arm itself.
The sole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to recognize the rights of the citizens and curb the powers of the government, to say otherwise is lunacy.
Click on the link, I'm 10th in the nation.
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/beeman_standings.asp
Bow down, indeed.
Attention Seattle area criminals! Dr. Clifford Herman is defenseless and unarmed!
This fool can't even get his American history straight. The British surrendered at Yorktown in 1781. The treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. So, in 1787, when the Constitution was adopted in Philadelphia, the "colonies" had been free of British rule for six years. Oh, and that loose arrangement of "13 colonies?" Those were entities known as sovereign states, and had been a functioning confederation since the mid 1770's.
Not nearly as dangerous as bending over for the anti-gun kooks.
Yes...no doubt based on my "friendly Indians" theory.
The Militia, as referenced in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16), described in the Militia Act if 1792, and protected by the second amendment, no longer exists. The National Guard of each state now describes and fulfills that role.
That said, about half the states do retain a "State Guard" or "State Defense Force" to be used in a local law enforcement capacity or to deal with state emergencies and natural disasters.
"and that "well regulated" means under government control."
The Founding Fathers used the phrase "well regulated Militia" to differentiate it from a bunch of overweight guys with guns and camo getting together once in a while on the weekend, calling themselves "Lt. Commander" and "Captain", shooting up the forest, and thinking they represent the citizen militia.
The Militia that the Founding Fathers had in mind was described in the Militia Act of 1792. It spelled out arms, training, organization, and officers appointed by the state. That is the "well regulated Militia" protected by the second amendment from federal infringement.
Beyond that, any individual RKBA is protected by each states' constitution.
Yes. Using a "federal" army (the Continental Army) along with state militias.
"The founders had NO fear that the government would not be able to arm itself."
The Founders feared that the newly formed federal government would not arm their state Militias (per Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 -- "Congress ... to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"). The second amendment was added to protect the right of the citizens of a state to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated state Militia from federal infringement.
Moldy old lefty tripe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.