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
__________________
The pesky preamble is what's known in legalese as "dicta", and like the side ramblings in court opinions, is distinct from the "holding", which is the actual statement of law. However, since the destruction of our educational system, such concepts are way over the heads of average citizens, and thus the language urgently needs to be simplified.
You're just not thinking this thing through. We let Granny keep her guns, how on earth are we gonna rob her?
During some of the confrontation with the gorons during the 2000 elctoin recounts, they would spout off about coups and dictatorships and stolen elections. I reminded them that we had the guns that they hated so much. Have you ever seen a group of people get a simultaneous "OH SH!T" look on their faces? Priceless, simply priceless.
"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
Ahem . . . um . . . actually, the Second Amendment contains three commas, not one comma.
Click here for a high resolution picture of the Bill of Rights.
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.
In a famous essay, J. Neil Schulman ran the following sentence by Professor Roy Copperud, who wrote American Usage and Style: The Consensus and was on the usage panel for American Heritage Dictionary:
A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.
Professor Copperud found no grammatical difference between the Second Amendment and that sentence. Under the anti-gun crowd's logic, only the members of a "well-schooled electorate" could own books, when the plain meaning is quite the opposite; namely, an unfettered right to own books is meant to foster a "well-schooled electorate."
Yeah OK, the reason for why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment was so that the governement could save money. Nice try dumbs**t.
What does this arrangement really mean???
Take a look at The Unabridged Second Amendment at the link.
You are simply wrong, as you would know if you were not too lazy to do a little research:
--Boris
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.
