| Dissecting the Lies |
|
|
|
| Written by Daniel White | |
| Wednesday, 10 May 2006 | |
|
An article in yesterday's The Salt Lake Tribune was written by Ohio State history professor Saul Cornell, who has also written a book claiming that you don't have any gun rights under the Second Amendment. His article repeats these lies, and some of them are so blatantly false that they deserve further scrutiny. Polling data for decades have shown that most Americans favor stronger gun laws. Indeed, surveys demonstrate that such policies are even supported by most gun owners. Yet pundits and political soothsayers have written off this issue because it is perceived to be a loser at the polls. First of all, the vast majority of non-biased polls (including a recent Zogby poll) have shown that Americans do not, in fact, favor more gun control laws. This is why campaigning on a platform of gun control is a loser at the polls. Bill Clinton himself lamented that the Democrats lost control of the legislature because they voted in favor of the "Assault Weapons Ban." Ironically, the Second Amendment does not prohibit robust gun regulation, it compels it. Actually, the Second Amendment compels the regulation of the militia, not the regulation or prohibition of firearms themselves. Clearly defined regulations were required to govern the actions of the militia to ensure it was orderly and effective. John Adams wrote in 1787, "The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." It is not surprising that during that struggle gun rights supporters tried to lay claim to the Second Amendment by reinterpreting it as an individual right of self-defense. This argument has been thoroughly debunked. The idea that all other rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, yet this particular one is a collective right, is ludicrous. Consider the following statements: "And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." - Sam Adams, 1789. "Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respect personal liberty..." - Sen. William Grayson of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry. "The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, 1789. The "militia" clause of the Second Amendment is nothing more than a example for the individual right to keep and bear arms. Supporters of regulation need to point out that liberty without regulation is impossible. The right to be free from the threat of gun violence deserves as much respect as the right to bear arms. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. That's an awful lot of regulation. Gun crimes exist because certain individuals choose not to follows those laws. Adding more laws will not change that fact. Not to mention that the right to bear arms protects the "right" to be free from gun violence. This fact is supported by the recent Wisconsin Policy Research Institute study which found that "if a crime is committed, the criminal is less likely to be successful if the victim produces a weapon" and "a criminal is more likely to move on to another victim if he suspects someone is carrying a weapon." Disarming law abiding citizens doesn't make them safer, and it doesn't cause criminals to suddenly stop preying upon them. Trying to pass off falsehoods as historical facts is not going to change that truth. Click here to read the original article. |