Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
bleport
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566The Second Amendment: Second Class Citizen
This year is important for those who value rights and freedoms above all. With an upcoming election in November and the Supreme Court’s pending judgment in the District of Colombia vs. Heller, concerning the DC handgun ban, “we the people” should be taking notice over the group we place in positions of authority. Moreover, it seems there is a feeling the Second Amendment is the wicked stepchild of the civil rights our Founding Fathers took the care to convey.
The treatment of the Second Amendment could not be more brilliantly displayed than by the comments made by Earl Ofari Hutchinson, President of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Table, after the death of Charles Heston, former President of the National Rifle Association. Hutchinson stated, “We certainly disagree with his [Heston's] position as NRA head and also his firm, firm, unwavering support of the unlimited right to bear arms . . . The phases we prefer to remember were certainly his [Heston's] contributions to Dr. King and civil rights” (Germain). Hutchinson’s remark characterizes the common view that the Second Amendment does not stand equal to other civil rights.
Unfortunately, the realities of each failed attempt at gun control are not shown in the media. Instead, there is normally a higher call to limit access, outright ban, or the creation of additional legislation to make it difficult for manufacturers, sellers, and prospective buyers to comply. On the contrary, no other civil right or freedom is forced to exist under the same scrutiny the Right to Bear Arms is under. It is time the Second Amendment was treated with the same respect as the other civil rights and not shunned by a nation created under the principles of freedom.
Works Cited
Germain, David. “Heston Left Cinematic, Political
Mark”. Associated Press My Way. 6 Apr.
2008. 7 Apr 2008 <http://apnews.myway.com/
article/20080406/D8VSKDDG0.html>.
Filed under: Commentary, Politics | Tagged: Civil Rights, Commentary, Politics
I don’t know, from where I sit the 1st Amendment is taking a pretty hard pounding as well. I also suspect that the imperialists in what I like to call the War Party are behind that as well, for the same reason. The assault on the 1st amendment is considerably more nuanced, since there are limits to how dramatically a false choice can be positioned to demonize free speech.
The debate over the 2nd amendment is rife with false choices on both sides. False choices make for bad debates. A sampling of columns from the Weakly Substandard will show that while you can construct an elegantly logical argument from a false postulate, ultimately that argument collapses under it’s own weight, as it lacks a true foundation.
I don’t think the sequence of the Bill of Rights is an accident. I think there is a reason the 1st is the 1st and the 2nd follows closely after. I’m beginning to believe the “well-regulated militia” clause is a beard. Remember, this was pretty much the same crowd that wrote the Declaration of Independence a decade earlier.
1st, we were guaranteed the right to speak against actions by the government to limit our freedoms; next, we were given the right to bear arms to remind the government that if a well-reasoned argument failed to carry the day, we were every bit as prepared to overthrow a domestic tyrant as one across the ocean. Unfortunately, today’s tyrants have been clever enough to wrap themselves in the flag. Too many of us swoon at the sight of a would-be emperor with a flag pin in his/her lapel. I’m more likely to swear at ‘em.
And, Lamont, as you use your 1st Amendment rights to speak out against the government here, with no threat of being tracked down and jailed for it, it doesn’t speak too well how much the 1st has been damaged.
As for the ‘tyrants’, they faced election in 2004- after much of what you speak was underway- and the majority in our republican form of democracy voted to keep them. I’ve heard the phrase ‘tyranny of the majority’ used. That’s a rather elitist term used by a minority whose view odesn’t win the day, especially when that minority still retains the right to be heard.
I disagree since I am having a hard time trying to find any anti-First Amendment organizations. However, it does not take much a search to locate organizations or groups that harbor anti-Second Amendment intentions. For the sake of argument, I will just list a few starting with “A”:
1. AFL-CIO
2. American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
3. American Academy of Pediatrics
4. American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing
5. American Academy of Pediatrics
6. American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities
7. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
8. American Association of School Administrators
9. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
10. American Association for World Health
11. American Association of Neurological Surgeons
12. American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
13. American Bar Association
14. American Bar Association
15. American Civil Liberties Union
16. American Counseling Association
17. American Ethical Union
18. American Federation of teachers
19. American Firearms Association
20. American Jewish Committee
21. American Jewish Congress
22. American Medical Association (AMA)
23. American Medical Women’s Association
24. American Medical Student Association
25. American Nurses Association
26. American Psychological Association
27. American Public Health Association
28. American Trauma Society
29. American for Democratic Action
30. Anti Defamation League
31. Association of American Medical Colleges
If you want the rest of the groups, here is the link: http://www.fa-ir.org/ai/anti-gun_org.htm
Those have to be some good “American” groups ;)
Like I said, the assault on the 1st is more subtle. No one is overtly opposing it. It’s under plenty of pressure; the culture of political correctness (typically attributed to the Blue Team, but abused often enough by the Red Team as well) is one aspect, as is the media consolidation being permitted by the FCC these days. The marginalization of candidates on either side, and we’ve seen plenty of that this cycle, is another way free speech is supressed. The candidates who threatened to inject new ideas were derided as “fringe”. (The “lunatic” was silent, but clearly understood by the electorate.) If there is anything we need, it’s new ideas. Linus Pauling once said “In order to have good ideas, you must have a lot of ideas.” I tend to give a bit of additional credibility to the musings of people who have won a Noble Prize in a hard science. Pauling’s quote mirrors Jefferson’s “Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is free to combat it.”
Mike, they ignore me, but why not? I’m a gadfly of no importance or influence. Plenty of people with more stroke than I have been harassed by the government in the last few decades for it though.
The “tyranny of the majority” was a favorite phrase of those elitists Jefferson & Madison. That’s why we got a republic, regarding which Franklin offered the challenge “if you can keep it”. Sorry Ben, we let you down.
I think elitism has gotten a bad rap. Today I heard of a woman who could not vote for Clinton because she feared the US would not be taken seriously with a female president. I heard another person state they could not vote for Obama because he moves his hands too much when he talks. I’ve heard people say they can’t vote for McCain because it’s time to give the other party a chance. I’ve also heard absurd arguments to vote for all 3. Maybe low voter turnout isn’t such a bad thing. People who pick a candidate for reasons that range from irrelevant but true to outright false don’t serve our republic well.
And the ‘tyranny of the majority’ this last time; did it violate the initial tenets laid out by the Founding Fathers? No, but the one thing they really didn’t count on was the general ignorance level of the government and the governmental process. Those Old Dead Guys couldn’t imagine a society where far more people could name three characters in a fiction play on TV than could name three people in a country in which we are fighting a war. Apathy to reality is something I’m sure they couldn’t imagine.
But they would understand the applicability of a modern phrase to our voters’ basic understanding these days:
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
I don;t think the first amendment is actually threatened these days, although a, vocal, anti-american, muslim cleric could test it.
I am interested, however, in the way the Bush administration has suspended the 4th amendment. A lot of people comlpain about the government taking away their guns, but I don’t think guns necessarily make you more free. I wouldn’t take the 2nd amendment away, but I’d rather protect my privacy than my shotgun. Just a thought.
To have the 4th apply (or any of the Constitution apply), you have to either be physically in the U.S, a U.S. Citizen or a legal U.S. resident. And the Geneva Convention applies only if certain conditions are met, many of which are not met by some of our terrorist opponents.
Still, basic morality requires certain things that have not always been abided by; weasel wording around the ethics involved is unseamly and inherently ‘unAmerican’ (by the ideal concept we should strive for, not the reality).
If Gitmo is what is bothering you, get the countries the occupants came from to accept them back. A lot are stuck because their homelands refuse to accept them. Of those that have been, we’ve already ended up killing at least 5 in the field in combat against us. Incorrigable is the word that comes to mind.
Me, I’d have neurosurgeons impant GPS trackers deep in their heads and announce to the world that fact and that we are releasing them. I figure their colleagues would then take care of things for us at that point.
It’s not Gitmo. It’s the warrentless searches, phone taps, etc. I’m sure they help with security, but they’re clear infractions sanctioned by the highest office in the land. I think a lot of Americans accept it because we have nothing to hide. I know I’m not particularly worried about the NSA listening to my phone calls. Still, I can’t help thinking that when our president suspends something like the 4th amendment, America has taken a turn for the worse.