Now that we’ve reviewed the First Amendment to the Constitution, let’s take a look at the most attacked and controversial of freedoms granted within the Constitution, the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
First, let us define Militia. What exactly is a Militia? The textbook or dictionary definition of a militia is as follows: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers, a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency, the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. Many of the Founding Fathers distrusted a standing army of professional soldiers. They believed that a Militia comprising of citizens would keep the government “honest” and America’s borders secure. Their main fear of a standing army of professional soldiers was that in their experience a standing army could be utilized against the people thereby putting in jeopardy the Nation as a whole. They insisted that when a Bill of Rights was adopted and amended into the Constitution that a provision for the Citizens to defend themselves against oppression from their Federal government and defense against enemies from abroad and domestic by permitting the formation of a Militia and the individual arming of the Citizens of the Country be added thereto.
The argument that has been made by proponents of the First Amendment is that the reasoning behind the positioning of the amendment indicates its importance and therefore you can’t infringe upon that right because of its great importance. If that argument is to stand uncontested, then one must agree that the positioning of the Second Amendment makes it equally as important. It is my belief that the Founding Fathers understood the events, which would lead to an enslaving of the people and the actions, which would be taken by the government to oppress its Citizens. It is clear by the wording of the Second Amendment that it was intention of the Founding Fathers to establish the individual right to bear arms and therefore establish the right of the Citizens to own weapons.
Opponents to the Second Amendment have repeatedly claimed that it makes no guarantee of an individual right to own weapons. One argument that has been made is that gun ownership in Colonial America was scarce and uncommon. They’ve come to this conclusion by reviewing probate records from that era. They say that there is seldom any mention of a gun in the lists of assets found within those records. As an estate planner let me explain the holes found within this argument made by gun ownership opponents. Typically when an asset list is made for the intent of an estate items of worth are made more particular mention of. That is when a list of assets is made you would list furniture, jewelry, personal treasures, etc. Items which hold a particular value to you and your family which would be passed on to family members that they would consider valuable. An asset list would not include clothing, kitchen utensils, and other common household items typically found in everybody’s home because those items would not be of great importance in establishing a value. The absence of guns on the probate lists of the Colonial America era does not necessarily mean that gun ownership was uncommon. As a matter of fact gun ownership was more than common, more so than owning multiple suits of clothing. The obtaining of food was in most cases an individual endeavor. It was not common to go to the neighborhood grocery store and pick up your meat for the day. Another indication that gun ownership was common was the fact that many townships of the day shared Constables and County Sheriffs; this meant that the people were responsible for their own personal protection from highway men, thieves and Indian attacks and any other danger which should present itself during the course of daily life.
The Second Amendment has consistently come under attack by groups claiming that the mere existence of firearms promotes crime. Many Nations throughout the world have taken steps to ban the ownership of firearms to their citizenry with the hopes of lowering and eliminating crime. The outcome of these Draconian measures has been dismal for those Nations adopting such regulations. For example, a recent article on crime in England claimed that a person would be safer walking the streets of New York City, NY than walking the streets of London, England, and England has in place strict gun bans which include even novelty (toy, non-operational) guns. There was a recent incident in which a woman was attacked while walking home by a group of thugs desiring to do her harm, she had in her possession a toy handgun that she had taken from her grandchildren and presented it to her assailants to effectively escape. Upon reporting the incident to the local police she was arrested for threatening bodily harm with a dangerous weapon. England is not the only Nation to see an increase in violent crimes since adopting either all out gun bans or strict restrictions on personal gun ownership. Here in the United States we have seen the opposite happen as States have relaxed restrictions and provided Conceal Carry laws allowing their citizens the right to carry a firearm. The most recent of these would be Minnesota where the anti-gun lobby including several of the State’s Chief’s of Police insisted if the State passed a law allowing the individual right to carry a weapon “blood would run in the streets.” Over the past 7 years that the law has been on the books, murder rates have steadily decreased and crime has been kept at bay and in some areas decreased as well. This has been the trend in every State that has adopted less restrictive gun laws for its citizens.
When the Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago and Bush refused to renew it, the anti-gun lobby once again bemoaned the fact that millions of children would needlessly die and that the U.S. murder rate would skyrocket to unparalleled precedents. This has of course not happened nor has the increase of crimes using assault style rifles occurred as they prophesied would happen. Time and time again the anti-gun lobby has been proven wrong in their dooms day predictions, yet we as a people still give credence to their drivel. Recently Stanford Law Professor Don Kates along with a Canadian law professor named Gary Mauser conducted a legal analysis in the which they reviewed dozens of existing studies from around the world on the subject of gun bans and the reduction of crime and murder rates. Their research proved the mantra from the anti-gun lobby to be not only wrong but blatantly false. There is no empirical evidence to support the statements made by the anti-gun lobby or their cohorts in the legislative bodies of government.
These defenses of the Second Amendment are not meant to imply that firearms are not used in the commission of crimes. Firearms are used in the commission of 66% of murders in the U.S. Yet even this number is misleading due to the fact that it includes crimes committed by guns obtained illegally. If the number were to be removed for crimes committed by legally obtained weapons the numbers would fall dramatically. After firearms the next weapons of choice are those classified by the FBI as other weapons, which include rocks, arrows, tools and so forth. Close behind those are knives and other cutting instruments. My intention in pointing this out is the fact that firearms are not the only weapons of choice for the committal of murder. Even if we as a society could effectively rid America of all firearms including those obtained through illegal means, murder would still be where it is today. In other words, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It sounds trite but it is true. An SUV can’t drive itself into a pedestrian, and a gun cannot discharge itself, it is operator initiated in both instances.
In summation, the individual right to keep and bear arms is in fact a Constitutionally guaranteed right granted us by our Founding Fathers. In their minds the right to defend oneself from violent crime from criminals or oppression from government was one in the same. Any attempt to remove the individual right to keep and bear arms should be met with most strenuous resistance that we can sum up within ourselves. The only reason why anybody would want to remove our right to self armament is to enslave us and give themselves the ability to trample under foot the rest of our freedoms within the Constitution.
To view the study conducted by Professors Kates and Mauser , follow this link: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment: Part Three
I would now like to take a look at the final part of the First Amendment as we've already discussed the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech and the press. This part of the First Amendment refers to the "right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Let us first look at "the right of the people to peaceably assemble". What does it mean to peaceably assemble? Well to define the word peaceably, it means: without disturbance or peacefully. To define peacefully, it means: characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration. I strongly believe that this right is essential for the assurance of order within our society. If this right is restricted or infringed upon then we as a society loose an integral part of our freedoms. It is through this guarantee that we are permitted to attend our church meetings throughout this Country, come together in book clubs, Rotary Clubs, Scout troops, etc. It is this guarantee which allows us as Americans to voice our opinion with regards to important subjects as we come together to rally for a cause. It is this freedom that we rely upon when we protest the actions of government or other organizations.
This being said, this right or freedom does not come without limitations. Let's go back to what it says as written, "peaceably assemble". We've defined peaceably as free from strife, commotion, violence, or disorder. Groups that come together and shout profanities at people attending the funerals of soldiers killed in action while fighting in Iraq are not protected by this Amendment although they claim the ability to do so from some loose interpretation of the First Amendment. The shouting of profanities to funeral attendees as well as religious devotees attending a religious meeting are in essence full of strife and commotion. There is not much to be said of this. There has been a very loose interpretation of this right, granting groups and organizations to assemble in an attitude of strife and disorder all the while claiming protection under the First Amendment. I believe our society needs to review this Amendment and enforce it as written.
Secondly, our right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I do believe that this is the one right that our government has not profaned as of yet. We have always been permitted to write our government officials. I believe the reason behind the fact that our government has always upheld this right is due to the fact that they are under no Constitutional obligation to redress any grievance presented to them, as they look at it. A perfect example of this would be shortly after the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were forced from their homes, murdered, and ruthlessly beaten in Missouri and forced from the State by Gov. Lilburn Bogg's Extermination Order, in the which he stated, "the Mormons must be treated as enemies and.... driven from the State or exterminated." They gathered affidavits and testimonials from those who had suffered at the hand of the Missourians and sent them off to the Congress. Congress ignored their petition for redress. They then went and met with President Van Buren and presented him with their complaint. After listening to the stories of abuse and mistreatment, President Van Buren exclaimed, "your cause is just, but there is nothing that I can do to help." In the eyes of the government there was no course needed to be taken, and the right of the Mormon people to petition the government for redress was not infringed upon in the slightest.
These rights outlined herein are essential to the assurance of a free Nation. They must be upheld by our government and properly applied by our Citizens. If we are to ensure the right of assemblage and petition we can not and must not abuse these freedoms. Ours is a sacred duty to emphatically uphold the freedoms guaranteed within the Constitution and pretend to no other. By so doing we will maintain order in our American society and peace will be established in our cities and in our homes.
Let us first look at "the right of the people to peaceably assemble". What does it mean to peaceably assemble? Well to define the word peaceably, it means: without disturbance or peacefully. To define peacefully, it means: characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration. I strongly believe that this right is essential for the assurance of order within our society. If this right is restricted or infringed upon then we as a society loose an integral part of our freedoms. It is through this guarantee that we are permitted to attend our church meetings throughout this Country, come together in book clubs, Rotary Clubs, Scout troops, etc. It is this guarantee which allows us as Americans to voice our opinion with regards to important subjects as we come together to rally for a cause. It is this freedom that we rely upon when we protest the actions of government or other organizations.
This being said, this right or freedom does not come without limitations. Let's go back to what it says as written, "peaceably assemble". We've defined peaceably as free from strife, commotion, violence, or disorder. Groups that come together and shout profanities at people attending the funerals of soldiers killed in action while fighting in Iraq are not protected by this Amendment although they claim the ability to do so from some loose interpretation of the First Amendment. The shouting of profanities to funeral attendees as well as religious devotees attending a religious meeting are in essence full of strife and commotion. There is not much to be said of this. There has been a very loose interpretation of this right, granting groups and organizations to assemble in an attitude of strife and disorder all the while claiming protection under the First Amendment. I believe our society needs to review this Amendment and enforce it as written.
Secondly, our right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I do believe that this is the one right that our government has not profaned as of yet. We have always been permitted to write our government officials. I believe the reason behind the fact that our government has always upheld this right is due to the fact that they are under no Constitutional obligation to redress any grievance presented to them, as they look at it. A perfect example of this would be shortly after the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were forced from their homes, murdered, and ruthlessly beaten in Missouri and forced from the State by Gov. Lilburn Bogg's Extermination Order, in the which he stated, "the Mormons must be treated as enemies and.... driven from the State or exterminated." They gathered affidavits and testimonials from those who had suffered at the hand of the Missourians and sent them off to the Congress. Congress ignored their petition for redress. They then went and met with President Van Buren and presented him with their complaint. After listening to the stories of abuse and mistreatment, President Van Buren exclaimed, "your cause is just, but there is nothing that I can do to help." In the eyes of the government there was no course needed to be taken, and the right of the Mormon people to petition the government for redress was not infringed upon in the slightest.
These rights outlined herein are essential to the assurance of a free Nation. They must be upheld by our government and properly applied by our Citizens. If we are to ensure the right of assemblage and petition we can not and must not abuse these freedoms. Ours is a sacred duty to emphatically uphold the freedoms guaranteed within the Constitution and pretend to no other. By so doing we will maintain order in our American society and peace will be established in our cities and in our homes.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment: Part Two
Now let us take a look at the next part of the First Amendment of the Constitution as it is written:
"Congress shall make no law...., abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..."
What does it mean to abridge the freedom speech? According to the definition of the word abridge to abridge one's freedom of speech means to reduce, diminish, or make less. How can a government abridge someones freedom of speech? One way is to put limitations upon what a person can say with regards to those who govern.
Why did the Founding Father's think it important to guarantee this freedom? Could it be that they knew the manner in which an oppressive government would try and effectuate control over people? During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War the British Crown sent officers of the Court to the New World to monitor those things which were being said against the Crown. Individuals who were found speaking out against the Crown were subsequently jailed and their material possessions taken from them as a consequence of their actions. Merely expressing displeasure in the governance of the Colonies made one fear for their lives and families. After the long fought war for independence the Founding Fathers were insistent that we as a people be permitted to express our displeasure and our views without fear of retaliation (except for cases of treason against the United States). This freedom is essential to a free people. If one is truly free and not the subject of an oppressive regime then they have the right to express their displeasure. On the other hand this freedom doesn't mean that it is without regulation and governance. For example you can't enter an airplane and jestingly declare you are going to hijack the airplane. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded building without consequence. These are common regulations placed upon our freedom of speech. There are social restrictions placed upon our freedom as well. It is not socially acceptable to enter a room full of children and commence spewing forth obscenities, the consequence to this action would be an escorted visit to the local police station for disorderly conduct. The list goes on with regards to the regulation of this essential freedom.
This being said, is this freedom equally extended to all Americans alike? The unfortunate answer to this is no. Today's society has interpreted the meaning of this portion of the First Amendment to imply that only the minority voice is protected from the restriction or oppression of speech. In addition to this inequality in the protection of one's freedom of speech, many have also interpreted this to mean that they have the right to be heard by all. Let's look at the wording once again, "Congress shall make no law......, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..." I see no mention of the fact that only certain groups identified by Congress shall have this protection, nor do I see any mention that when exercising this freedom do you have the right granted to be heard. Furthermore, Congress is currently attempting to move forward with the passing upon of legislation which will make statutory law that which is commonly referred to as the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949 to regulate the presentation over public airwaves of controversial subjects and subjects of importance to the American people to ensure that these subjects were presented in a fair and balanced manner. Essentially it required companies and individuals holding broadcasting licences to give equal time to opposing views of any given subject. This policy was a general practise within the FCC of many years until 1985 when the Director of the FCC decided that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. It was finally abolished as a policy in 1987.
Many within the walls of Congress and the Senate along with special interest groups believe that the Fairness Doctrine was essential to the dissemination of information through public airwaves. Recently Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico told a local conservative talk show host, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." In June of this year Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California told reporters that her fellow democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied "Yes." Others who have voiced their support of the re institution of the Fairness Doctrine are Dick Durban, Democrat from Illinois and John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts. Their desire to establish the Fairness Doctrine through Congressional intervention through legislation has extended beyond the mere application to radio stations and licensed broadcasters. Their current desire is to extend the doctrine to web sites and blogs. Which means blogs like this one would be required to represent both sides of all Constitutional issues or cease all operations and writing. This doctrine would silence talk radio which is dominated by conservative radio hosts, it would cancel Fox News, which has been attacked by the liberal left and Congress as a biased news outlet working for the Republican Party.
Would America be better served with the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? My attitude is of course no. I see no benefit to the American people. I do perceive an encroachment of my freedoms and the freedoms of those who are like minded. Would the Fairness Doctrine be enforced upon MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS? Would those news outlets who have during the last 18 months revealed themselves as no more than political hacks, left leaning liberals, and outright socialists be required to present the news in a fair and balanced manner? As of right now, only talk radio and conservative blogs and websites have been identified as targets deemed dangerous to the American public.
We as Americans owe it to ourselves and our children to ensure that this doctrine is not revived. We have a solemn responsibility passed upon us by our Founding Fathers, one which if we neglect to protect will be taken from us and we will be subjects to an oppressive government, that which our Founding Fathers intended not to happen.
In my next post we will discuss the final portion of this Amendment to the Constitution, which is our freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress.
"Congress shall make no law...., abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..."
What does it mean to abridge the freedom speech? According to the definition of the word abridge to abridge one's freedom of speech means to reduce, diminish, or make less. How can a government abridge someones freedom of speech? One way is to put limitations upon what a person can say with regards to those who govern.
Why did the Founding Father's think it important to guarantee this freedom? Could it be that they knew the manner in which an oppressive government would try and effectuate control over people? During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War the British Crown sent officers of the Court to the New World to monitor those things which were being said against the Crown. Individuals who were found speaking out against the Crown were subsequently jailed and their material possessions taken from them as a consequence of their actions. Merely expressing displeasure in the governance of the Colonies made one fear for their lives and families. After the long fought war for independence the Founding Fathers were insistent that we as a people be permitted to express our displeasure and our views without fear of retaliation (except for cases of treason against the United States). This freedom is essential to a free people. If one is truly free and not the subject of an oppressive regime then they have the right to express their displeasure. On the other hand this freedom doesn't mean that it is without regulation and governance. For example you can't enter an airplane and jestingly declare you are going to hijack the airplane. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded building without consequence. These are common regulations placed upon our freedom of speech. There are social restrictions placed upon our freedom as well. It is not socially acceptable to enter a room full of children and commence spewing forth obscenities, the consequence to this action would be an escorted visit to the local police station for disorderly conduct. The list goes on with regards to the regulation of this essential freedom.
This being said, is this freedom equally extended to all Americans alike? The unfortunate answer to this is no. Today's society has interpreted the meaning of this portion of the First Amendment to imply that only the minority voice is protected from the restriction or oppression of speech. In addition to this inequality in the protection of one's freedom of speech, many have also interpreted this to mean that they have the right to be heard by all. Let's look at the wording once again, "Congress shall make no law......, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..." I see no mention of the fact that only certain groups identified by Congress shall have this protection, nor do I see any mention that when exercising this freedom do you have the right granted to be heard. Furthermore, Congress is currently attempting to move forward with the passing upon of legislation which will make statutory law that which is commonly referred to as the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949 to regulate the presentation over public airwaves of controversial subjects and subjects of importance to the American people to ensure that these subjects were presented in a fair and balanced manner. Essentially it required companies and individuals holding broadcasting licences to give equal time to opposing views of any given subject. This policy was a general practise within the FCC of many years until 1985 when the Director of the FCC decided that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. It was finally abolished as a policy in 1987.
Many within the walls of Congress and the Senate along with special interest groups believe that the Fairness Doctrine was essential to the dissemination of information through public airwaves. Recently Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico told a local conservative talk show host, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." In June of this year Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California told reporters that her fellow democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied "Yes." Others who have voiced their support of the re institution of the Fairness Doctrine are Dick Durban, Democrat from Illinois and John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts. Their desire to establish the Fairness Doctrine through Congressional intervention through legislation has extended beyond the mere application to radio stations and licensed broadcasters. Their current desire is to extend the doctrine to web sites and blogs. Which means blogs like this one would be required to represent both sides of all Constitutional issues or cease all operations and writing. This doctrine would silence talk radio which is dominated by conservative radio hosts, it would cancel Fox News, which has been attacked by the liberal left and Congress as a biased news outlet working for the Republican Party.
Would America be better served with the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? My attitude is of course no. I see no benefit to the American people. I do perceive an encroachment of my freedoms and the freedoms of those who are like minded. Would the Fairness Doctrine be enforced upon MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS? Would those news outlets who have during the last 18 months revealed themselves as no more than political hacks, left leaning liberals, and outright socialists be required to present the news in a fair and balanced manner? As of right now, only talk radio and conservative blogs and websites have been identified as targets deemed dangerous to the American public.
We as Americans owe it to ourselves and our children to ensure that this doctrine is not revived. We have a solemn responsibility passed upon us by our Founding Fathers, one which if we neglect to protect will be taken from us and we will be subjects to an oppressive government, that which our Founding Fathers intended not to happen.
In my next post we will discuss the final portion of this Amendment to the Constitution, which is our freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)