Posted on 04/09/2002 12:17:54 PM PDT by RCW2001
News stories from around the nation identifying gun control as a trip-wire issue dividing conservatives and liberals don't surprise. The events of September 11 have heightened the resolution of the "individual rights" interpreters of the Second Amendment. These are distinguished from the "collective rights" faction. The former stare the language in the face and come away with a reading different from the collective crowd. At issue is the interpretation of a single sentence: "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." Opponents of comprehensive gun-control laws view this as a constitutional guarantee of the right of Americans to own guns. An easy to way to put it is that they view the amendment as if the initial clause were irrelevant, leaving us simply with a guarantee against federal gun control that challenges the right of citizens to own weapons. By contrast, of course, there are those (roughly speaking, the nation's intelligentsia) who insist that the Second Amendment goes no further than to say that Congress may not legislate against the right of individual states to organize militias of arms-bearing citizens.
The learned arguments go on and on. The gun-control lobby has suffered two severe blows in the recent period. One of them is that Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard, much esteemed by American liberals, in part because of his enthusiasm for abortion rights, having examined the historical documents, opines that indeed the people who framed the Bill of Rights intended to guarantee individual, not merely collective, gun-ownership rights. And the Fifth Circuit ruled in the same direction in United States v. Emerson.
As with other contentions requiring constitutional interpretation, the division over gun control is only one part historical (What did the framers intend?). Another, more significant part, is political (What does the American public want?) But it's better, and safer, to ask the question: What do the American people reasonably want? It probably could be established by polling that the American people would be happy to hang anybody who burns the U.S. flag, but such sentiments are not likely to be codified.
It's more fruitful to argue reasonable limitations on gun ownership. A comic routine in Las Vegas in 1980 featured a debate between presidential contenders Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter on the matter of gun control, Walter Cronkite presiding. "What about atom bombs, Governor Reagan? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to have atom bombs?"
"Well, Mr. Cronkite," the comedian answered pensively, "just small atom bombs."
The assertion of a right at ridiculous lengths — the absolutization of it, in the manner of the American Civil Liberties Union — is a way of undermining it. If the Constitution says you can say anything you want under any circumstances, then you can shout fire! in a crowded movie theater. If you have the right to remain silent in all circumstance, then you can decline to give testimony vital to another citizen's freedom and rights. If you insist that a citizen has the right to own a machine gun, you discredit his right to own a pistol or a rifle.
What ripened in the aftermath of September 11 was a sensibility — of the individual citizen's dependence, at the margin, on his own resources. George Will put it pithily (as ever), when he asked, Call for a cop, an ambulance, and a pizza, and ask which is likelier to get to you first. A rifle in the closet wouldn't have been useful against the swooping 767s that struck the Twin Towers. But a sense of the implications of chaos and anarchy was sharpened. An analyst 20 years ago remarked that an 82-year-old couple living in an apartment in the Bronx, after twice being assaulted, found it possible to sleep at night only after acquiring a pistol and advertising its presence on a note pinned to the outside door.
Both sides will find it useful to temper extreme expressions of their positions. But it is certainly true that at this moment it is likelier that congressmen running for election or reelection in November will not press the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment.
We're as likely to go back to gun control as we are to go back to the gold standard.
Tell that to the residents of New York and their RINO governor, George Pataki.
I said it's still twitching here and there. NY and California are going to be the last stands. We will eventually win there as well.
And give me RINO Pataki any day over the RATS McCall or Mini-Cuomo.
How? How many murders have been committed with machine guns? Or submachine guns. I'd like to see class III's allowed in Michigan. I shot an MP5. It's fun, and no one got hurt.
If can be kicked to the curb though with grass roots movements though.
Speaking of CCW in Michigan. I don't believe in polls. Never did. But they USUALLY are somewhat accurate within 10%. It used to be 38% backing CCW in Michigan if you believe the polls. Now the polls say 58%.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is not virtue!"
--Barry Goldwater, July 16, 1964
Tell me about it. I am moving back to New York from Florida in August.
People who lived in Florida when they originally passed CCW told me that polls were against it at the time. Since it was passed (1988, I think), there has been scarcely a whimper against it.
"Well, Mr. Cronkite," [Reagan] answered pensively, "just small atom bombs."
This is why I miss Ronaldus Magnus. Cronkite was maneuvering to trap Reagan with a no-win question a la "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Reagan deftly parried Cronkite's attack with his usual humor.
While the author obviously wishes it so, that is an inaccurate reading of both the Constitution, and History.
To wit: Article II Sec.8 Congress Shall have the power to... grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal
Consider that basically A Letter of Marque autorizes privateering, that implies Civilian ownership of both Warships, and Cannon....Heavy Military equipment.
I agree with you, but the liberals aren't giving up, they may have backed off on guns, but they are making other assaults on the Constitution. They aren't giving up by a long shot, very tenacious. The next 6 years will show where we are headed, although Bush at times is trying to push the government left.
Title 18 US Code chapter 13 Civil Rights;
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html
Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html (Note: The police act under color of authority and wear holstered guns, and holstered guns are considered threatened use of a dangerous weapon when we peasants wear them when we commit crimes.)
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.