Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NEITHER SIDE HAS BEEN ON TARGET OVER GUN RIGHTS (Another call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment)
The Columbus Dispatch | May 19, 2002

Posted on 05/20/2002 12:37:29 PM PDT by tarawa

(OH) Another call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment Copyright 2002 The Columbus Dispatch The Columbus Dispatch

May 19, 2002 Sunday, Home Final Edition

SECTION: EDITORIAL & COMMENT; Pg. 03D

LENGTH: 806 words

HEADLINE: NEITHER SIDE HAS BEEN ON TARGET OVER GUN RIGHTS

BYLINE: Andrew Oldenquist, For The Dispatch

BODY: Attorney General John Ashcroft is trying, most likely in vain, to persuade the Supreme Court to interpret the Second Amendment as the National Rifle Association interprets it. Both sides in this debate offer totally implausible interpretations of the Second Amendment:

*The anti-gun side says the amendment guarantees only a collective right: the right of a militia and today's military to be armed. But why would the Constitution bother saying a militia or army can be armed? Besides, the Second Amendment speaks of "the right of the people to bear arms," which implies an individual, not a collective, right. It doesn't say you are guaranteed a right to a gun only after you are called up; it says you may keep a gun in case you are called up. Neither is a militia a last defense against government tyranny, as some people have argued. Article I of the Constitution authorizes Congress to "provide for calling forth the militia to . . . suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia." The militia is a state organ, not a private organ. * The pro-gun side says the amendment guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for personal protection and other noncriminal purposes. But it says nothing of the sort. It says, "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." This speaks only of the state's need of a militia and a militia's need of armed citizens.

What the Framers apparently meant is that citizens should bring their own guns when called up, relieving the government of supplying them. If states or Congress banned guns, there might be a shortage when a crisis arose.

This constitutional protection does not extend to persons ineligible for military service and, thus, leaves out the elderly, the sick, the handicapped and, in those days, women. It doesn't guarantee Charlton Heston a right to keep guns; he's too old for military service. These are precisely the people who might most need guns for protection. If the amendment meant to guarantee the right to own guns for personal protection, in addition to militia needs, it would say that.

If the NRA is right, one would think there is a history of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the amendment as a right to own guns for self-protection. But the court never has struck down a gun-control law on Second Amendment grounds and never has affirmed a universal Second Amendment right to guns. This interpretation is the creation of the gun lobby.

There's no way to squeeze out of the amendment a right to guns independent of militia needs. The amendment means that because a free state needs a militia, the right to guns can't be infringed.

For example, if the Constitution said, "A federal budget, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Congress to levy taxes shall not be infringed," this wouldn't mean Congress is guaranteed a right to levy taxes to gamble with or for other purposes unrelated to funding a federal budget.

Quarreling about individual vs. collective rights avoids the deeper issue. The amendment, when seen as about guns for potential soldiers, is obsolete, because what it guarantees is the right of citizens eligible to serve in the armed forces to keep, for military use, guns that today are of llttle use to a modern army or national guard. The image of draftees showing up with various rifles, shotguns and pistols makes sense for the 18th century but is absurd now.

No one knows how many Americans are against gun control and gun registration simply because they think the Constitution prohibits it. Once the illogical interpretation of the NRA and Ashcroft is rejected and people realize the Constitution implies nothing about guns for personal protection, we will get a more informed and objective view of regulating guns.

Repealing the amendment would end the confusion and repeal, by itself, in no way would restrict anyone's right to own guns. In our democracy, we do not need to be granted a right to do anything: We are free to do whatever we want, unless forbidden by legitimate federal and state laws. This leaves gun rights in the hands of the people, via their elected representatives, with the right to make and change gun laws as they see fit. Yet, the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, hence sacred in the eyes of nearly all Americans. Repealing one of these is not like repealing the 18th Amendment, which had established Prohibition. Perhaps we should leave the Second Amendment alone and deal as best we can with an apparently inviolable right of the physically fit of military age to have guns.

Andrew Oldenquist is professor emeritus of philosophy at Ohio State University.

oldenquist.1@osu.edu

__________________


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; hoplophobes; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

1 posted on 05/20/2002 12:37:29 PM PDT by tarawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: basil;bang_list
ping
2 posted on 05/20/2002 12:38:29 PM PDT by tarawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
Just anohter idiot who knows nothing of history our this country's foundations. Another public school idiot.
3 posted on 05/20/2002 12:46:39 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa

4 posted on 05/20/2002 12:47:41 PM PDT by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
The author seems to think that labeling a point of view the NRA's somehow invalidates it. But the author is absolutely correct in his parsing of the Second Amendment: The amendment means that because a free state needs a militia, the right to guns can't be infringed. but neatly leaves out whose right is referred to in his synopsis. The framers did not.

I would agree with his suggestion Perhaps we should leave the Second Amendment alone and deal as best we can with an apparently inviolable right of the physically fit of military age to have guns. What I can't understand is why the author doesn't seem to buy into his own conclusion.

5 posted on 05/20/2002 12:48:06 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of this does the gun-grabbing leftist prof not understand?

6 posted on 05/20/2002 12:49:58 PM PDT by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
Just anohter idiot who knows nothing of history our this country's foundations. Another public school idiot. Oh come on! He is a great thinker, at least in his own mind! Blackbird.
7 posted on 05/20/2002 12:52:35 PM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
One would think that people who believe that President Bush is so morally corrupt that he knew about the 9/11 attack and kept quiet so his friends could make money on the deal, would be the first to want to arm themselvs as protection against the this government.

Go figure. The same people who believe that this administration is horrible, corrupt and willing to kill their own citizens for a few bucks on puts and calls on the stock market are the ones that see no need to keep and bare arms.

8 posted on 05/20/2002 12:54:54 PM PDT by Blue Screen of Death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at p. 750, August 17, 1789.

9 posted on 05/20/2002 1:17:18 PM PDT by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
"It says, '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.'"

No, it does not. The Second Amendment contains only a single comma.

--Boris

10 posted on 05/20/2002 1:19:23 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"

--Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888).

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."

--Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist No. 29.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

--Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

11 posted on 05/20/2002 1:19:55 PM PDT by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
Prof Oldenquist is an idiot. I would have hated to have had to take a philosophy course from the old dingbat. The historical essays and discourse involveing the writing and ratification of the Constitution leave NO DOUBT what the 2nd means and what the Founders had in mind. Even a near illiterate like Prof Oldenquist should be able to glean the simple meaning from the above quotes. Duh!
12 posted on 05/20/2002 1:22:42 PM PDT by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
Publications by the learned dingbat:

Andrew OLDENQUIST __________

Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, Ohio State University, 350 University Hall, 230 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

Oldenquist, A. 1978. Evolution and ethics. Personalist 59: 58—69. Keyword: evolutionary ethics.

Oldenquist, A. 1980. The possibility of selfishness. American Philosophical Quarterly 17: 25—33. Keyword: evolutionary ethics.

Oldenquist, A. 1990. The origins of morality: An essay in philosophical anthropology. Social Philosophy and Policy 8: 121—140. Keyword: evolutionary ethics.

This guy's specialty is evolutionary ethics, or as some might put it, "situational morality". Typical leftist nonsense used to rationalize any type of assinine behavior.

13 posted on 05/20/2002 1:30:34 PM PDT by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
IMHO, there are several flaws in his argument.

1) The phrase "well regulated militia" - he assumes that "regulated" means being constrained by numerous laws (the 20th century use of the word) rather than the 18th century use, which meant utilizing a common caliber of ammunition. Secondly, he defines militia as being an organized organ of the State, and not a group of individual citizens who may, or may not, share the interests of the government currently in place

2) The phrase "security of a free state" - there's a subtle difference between treating a "free state" as a government, vs a "free state" as being the collective citizens (regardless of the government in power). Is it for the security of the government in power, or that of the people who make up the body of the citizenry? I would argue the latter, the professor argues the former.

3) His budget example is off base. How about this phrase:
"An armed group of individual citizens using agreed-upon ammunition being necessary for the security of free people, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".
Would this person still doubt the clear meaning of the founders?

4) And that's not even considering the many crystal clear quotes by the founders that have already been posted.
14 posted on 05/20/2002 1:33:53 PM PDT by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
Attorney General John Ashcroft is trying, most likely in vain, to persuade the Supreme Court to interpret the Second Amendment as the National Rifle Association interprets it.

This sentence - #1 in the article body, is a lie. Olson has asked the Supreme Court to reject hearing any Second Amendment cases, specifically Emerson's and Haney's, so that they will not offer any interpretation of it.

15 posted on 05/20/2002 1:38:36 PM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
BTTT!
16 posted on 05/20/2002 1:38:50 PM PDT by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
I would agree with his suggestion Perhaps we should leave the Second Amendment alone and deal as best we can with an apparently inviolable right of the physically fit of military age to have guns. What I can't understand is why the author doesn't seem to buy into his own conclusion.

Why do you want to take guns away from the elderly or infirm?

Grandma needs her guns as much as the next guy.

17 posted on 05/20/2002 1:39:04 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: babyface00
One of the definitions of militia is " a body of citizens organized for military service". I think the correct argument is that the founders thougt of all citizens as "the militia", even if they may rebel against the government from time to time. Remember that the founding fathers were commiting illegal acts against the British government. They thought the citizens should be armed just in case they had to commit drastic illegal acts against the new government to protect their freedom.
18 posted on 05/20/2002 1:42:56 PM PDT by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ItsTheMediaStupid
I agree. That's a good point.

Why would a bunch of people who had just liberated themselves via force of arms from the greatest military power of the time, then go delineate a "right" to the newly-created government which would have effectively prevented their own insurrection, had it been in place? It's obvious, they intended to insure the citizens were armed.

I've often lamented that the wording of the 2nd amendment is a little cumbersome, but then the "intelligencia" of today turn even plain English around to mean something sinister. I doubt it would have made any difference to those who would prefer to "crouch down lick the hand that feeds them" rather than assert their rights as free men.
19 posted on 05/20/2002 1:53:36 PM PDT by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tarawa
"For example, if the Constitution said, "A federal budget, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Congress to levy taxes shall not be infringed," this wouldn't mean Congress is guaranteed a right to levy taxes to gamble with or for other purposes unrelated to funding a federal budget."

If this language is so clear and unambiguous, why didn't congress use it when they wrote the 16th amendment?

20 posted on 05/20/2002 2:03:46 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson