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.]
It's unconstitutional for National Guard members to operate a prison during a strike by public employees? Public buildings are the same as private residences if union members sometimes sleep there on the job?
Even the majority in your split decision citation admit that they could only arrive at their opinion by ignoring the actual language of the Constitution and resorting to "analogous" rationalizations.
"Under a technical and literal reading of the language, the Third Amendment would only protect fee simple owners of houses. We reject such a formalistic construction for the same reasons that it has been rejected in analogous contexts."
Blatant judicial activism, explicit rejection of the language of the Constitution and hard core left wing pandering.
It's interesting alright.
I love people who tell me they have a right to their opinions regarding matters such as this.
I tell them as gently as possible that they have a right to an opinion as to how to perform brain surgery. That doesn't mean I'm going to let them open up my skull.
L
I love people who tell me they have a right to their opinions regarding matters such as this.
There's a little more to it than that, in particular just who is funding some of the *concerned physicians* trying to disarm America, and the unanswered question of just what they have planned for us if they should accomplish that steppingstone along the path they have planned.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You moron, maybe that has something to do with the fact that legitimate medical facilities report gunshot wounds to the police, and that for some odd reason burglars do not like having the police inquiring into their business.
I tell them as gently as possible that they have a right to an opinion as to how to perform brain surgery. That doesn't mean I'm going to let them open up my skull.
You see! You have no appreciation or sympathy for those poor deluded people, nor for the physical condition that's caused such short-circuitry of their mental processes.
Clearly, such folks suffer from a lead deficiency. Dr. archy prescribes a 230-grain intracardiac injection. Repeat as needed, but one dose should prove an effective cure.
I love it when pointy-headed liberals prove their stupidity time and again.
Your tuition dollars at work.
Sooo, The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) are for, by & of the people.....all of them EXCEPT the 2nd? Unbelievable
Sadly I think it's going to come to that.
But there are lines in the sand. Mine are very clear and well defined.
Stay safe my friend.
L
>I have a fear that even owning guns will not keep us free as long as the gun runners of the world keep selling hi-tech stuff to anyone with the money to buy it.<
Let them hold and maintain the hi-tech stuff. We can always take it from them when we need it.
Anyone who doesn't believe people have a right to defend themselves should not be listened to or trusted.
I can't believe they still allow doctors to graduate without the fundamental ability to read and comprehend what they're reading...
From Wikepia:
William Randolph Hearst took over the paper in 1921. The Hearst Corporation owns the P-I to this day.
The daily Seattle Post-Intelligencer is one of two daily newspapers in Seattle, Washington, United States, the other being the Seattle Times. The PI is widely perceived to be more liberal than the Times.
A liberal rag and a liberal prof, two liars don't make for the truth.
"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."
Or it could be that the author works in an upper class community well served by the police and private security.
"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."
Amazing that he cides us yet has his own facts soooo wrong.
He's claiming the National Guard, which was formed well after the Bill of Rights was written, is the militia the BOR refers to?
He's claiming citizens are NOT part of the militia, in spite of US TITLE 10?
He's claiming the 2nd is not an individual right, that it belongs only to the Feds and National Guard? Does the belive freedom of the press only belongs to state run news agencies?
The right of the people is individual, not collective.
This brainless twit has been sniffing way too much anesthesia.
The Tenth Amendment exists much more as a protection of state power than of individual freedom; it only protects people's rights insofar as it indicates that the people retain those powers which the federal government forbids the states from exercising but does not exercise itself.
Still, the point is well taken; unlike the Tenth Amendment, whose text clearly protects state powers, the Second Amendment refers to the right of the people.
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.