Memo To Clifford M. Herman:
Click the Pic
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 amendments first portion merely ~explains~ that: "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."
"-- Two main schools of thought have developed on the issue of whether the Second Amendment recognizes individual or collective rights. These schools of thought are referred to as the "states' rights," or "collective rights," school and the "individual rights" school. --"
Good job Paul, -- your quote brought out one of FR's 'collectivists' to admit once again his support for state majority rule prohibitions on guns.
It is not the fact that you own a gun or even that you have access to one that will matter if you are called upon to help defend our nation from it's enemies, either foreign or domestic. What will matter is your willingness to use it. Your ability to survive may depend upon your proficiency with a gun.
As far as the Hi-Tech stuff goes, fear not for you too can own some of that Hi-Tech tuff. When the shooting starts, just look around for the fella who no longer needs his and claim it as your own.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
Here's the straight poop [sarcasm] from FR's foremost collectivist:
~~~~ We, as a society, decide which rights we will protect ---
We can choose not to protect your right to do ----. [most anything]
If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this. ---
Forgive me y'all, but I love reposting decrees like this one....
WOW........not surprising at all. That should be reposted on every banglist thread. Thanks for sharing.
Absent that, a firearm is just a hunk of steel and lead. We've forgotten how to use our "liberty teeth" for their intended purpose.
Time to get off our knees, square the jaw, and tell them in a clear voice, "No. I will not comply."
No more infringements. No more restrictions. No more BS "for the children". It's a RIGHT. We need to exercise it.
Semper Fi...
I your last post you wrote Time to get off our knees, square the jaw, and tell them in a clear voice, "No. I will not comply."
I believe we are sailing on the same course. I'll be sure to mention at the next Vigilance Committee meeting that we lay in a plentiful supply of fine manila hemp. Events are looking more and more like it will be needed.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
And any court which claims the 2A is a collective right (I must have missed some of those decisions) is using modern dogma to interpret clear prose in a nefarious way.
The Dick Act of 1903 started a gradual process that, after the National Defense Act of 1933, resulted in the National Guard being a reserve component of the Regular Army. Their pay and equiptment comes from the feds. They are on loan to the States unless the feds want them, but they are a federal force
That's called federalism, not collectivism. The way the U.S. Constitution was originally written.
But that makes centrists like yourself uncomfortable. You applaud the activist judges who use the 14th amendment to create a one-size-fits-all government. This way, five justices define your rights and apply that definition to all 50 states.
Do you like what they've done with the first amendment? They say it protects nude dancing. And that means all 50 states must allow it.
Then we have McCain-Feingold and eminent domain and abortion and sodomy and a whole bunch of rights that the states must protect.
Like the way your freedom of religion has been eroded over the years? Want to move to a state where you can at least put up a Nativity Scene in the public square? No state to move to, amigo. The laws apply to every state.
And you want these whack-jobs to define your gun rights and apply their definition to all 50 states. Way to go. Sarah Brady must be proud of you.
(Oh, the third amendment doesn't apply to the states, only the federal government. So if it isn't protected in the Florida State Constitution, get ready for company.)
How predictable. Maybe it is not in the state constitution because nobody had any problems understanding that it was not needed.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/engblom.html is an interesting read.
Puh-leeze. The only federal court case to declare an individual right (Emerson) took place in 2001. There's your modern dogma.
Har! This pathetic old clown, Clifford M. Herman, has no idea why the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights.
Burglars.... LMAO!
Hey, Cliff.... The Second Amendment is there so people like ME can defend ourselves against scumbags like YOU who would help the Democrat Party turn America into a tyrannical, oppressive, fascist, Euro-style, secular-socialist welfare state.
Drop dead, Cliff. And keep off my property.
Then where are these myriad cases you cite?
Yes, the 2nd Circuit agreed with the district court (rather matter-of-factly) that the 3rd amendment was incorporated. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has not decided on 3rd amendment incorporation.
So, unless you live in the area served by the 2nd Circuit (you don't), then you're SOL.
I'm not taking 2 hours of my time to cite 30 cases just to have you blow them away with, "They're wrong".
Google up "circuit court collective right".
Memo To Clifford M. Herman:
Click the Pic
That's because the vast majority of burglars, and other criminals, who were driven off by use of arms didn't need your services as a trauma surgeon; they ran like hell before they could get shot!
Most of the defensive gun uses in the US do not involve gunfire. The bad guy leaves when a gun appears. (After all, he's not there to get into a gun fight; he's there to steal stuff, sell it, and use the money for drugs. You can't get high if you're dead.) Most people will not report a non-shooting to the police, so the good doctor doesn't hear about them.
They totally seem to not comprehend this part of the amendment. I wish I could go back in time and slap them silly for not working The 2nd in a more absolute way. Yet, regardless of wordage the liberals of today have a way of not seeing what's in the Constitution, and seeing what's not in it, and making decisions accordingly.
Dr. Herman practices General Surgery in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Clifford Herman, a male, graduated from the University Vt College Med with a MD and has been in the profession for 48 years.
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.
