| OFCC Defends Second Amendment at Event |
|
|
|
| Written by Mike Kinsey | |
| Sunday, 17 September 2006 | |
|
The Tuscarawas campus of Kent State University hosted “Two Views of the United States Constitution” on September 14 as part of their annual Constitution Day Program. The event was held in the campus’s aptly named auditorium, The Freedom Hall; highlighting the fact that an innate birthright described in the First Amendment, The Freedom of Speech, was used to discuss another inalienable right, the Second Amendment: 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.The event was facilitated by Mr. Jim Carlton, associate professor of Political Science. One interpretation of the Second Amendment was given by Dr. Amy Thompson. Dr. Thompson is an assistant professor of Health Education at KSU and a board member of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence. The coalition’s stated goal is to encourage local, state, and federal legislation to reduce the accessibility of firearms in communities and families. Her presentation centered on the historically recent interpretation of the Second Amendment that the right to keep and bear arms does not extend to the individuals that make up “The People” of these United States. She began with a discussion about the introductory and declaratory phrase in the Second Amendment that describes the importance of a militia over a standing, domestic army. Her argument was that only an organized militia should be armed. From there, Dr. Thompson strayed from the evening’s topic by using the remainder of her time discussing criminal activity and the various firearms that she feels should be prohibited. Phrases like “Saturday Night Specials” and “Assault Weapons” were cited numerous times. Not surprisingly, those terms were not defined so that the audience could be informed that these phrases are created to describe only cosmetic differences that arbitrarily separate some firearms from others. While Dr. Thompson’s presentation was well-organized and well-given, only her brief introduction actually addressed the topic at hand – the wording of the Second Amendment that guarantees “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Mr. Jeff Garvas, President and Founder of Ohioans For Concealed Carry, opposed Dr. Thompson and argued that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual right. The justification began by comparing the Second Amendment to the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. The First Amendment states that: “Congress shall make no law abridging… the right of the people… peaceably to assemble.”The Fourth Amendment states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.”As we all know, the phrase “right of the people” in these Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are universally accepted as guaranteeing the rights of individuals. Why has the Second Amendment been recently interpreted to mean otherwise? The intentions of our founding fathers were further explored as Mr. Garvas presented the numerous State Constitutions that were written soon after the adoption of the Second Amendment and usually by the same men that ratified it. For instance, the Vermont State Constitution that was ratified in 1777 reads: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State…”Obviously, this clearly shows that the intent of wordage similar to the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. Mr. Garvas also commented on a study performed by his opponent entitled, “Police Chiefs’ Perceptions of the Regulation of Firearms”. In it, Dr. Thompson sent surveys to 600 select Police Chiefs in large cities. Not surprisingly, a study that originated from an anti-gun advocate resulted in anti-gun conclusions. In order to present statistics not rooted in bias, Mr. Garvas commented on an annual study created and executed by Police Chiefs themselves. The 2005 survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police was sent to 22,587 Police Chiefs and Sheriffs that represent a cross-section of professional command offices from all states and all sizes of cities. The results from this study were overwhelmingly in favor of possession of firearms for individual citizens. When asked, “Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense? 92.4% of all responses were “Yes”. Somehow, Dr. Thompson’s study of the opinions of Police Chiefs directly contradicts the results from the official study conducted by the Chiefs of Police themselves. I wonder whose version we should believe. The greatest response from the audience occurred when Mr. Garvas commented on what the Second Amendment was designed to prevent. While governmental confiscation of legal firearms is presumably illegal in this country, it did occur during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Graphic videos were shown that depicted a member of our National Guard who was uneasy in his role of disarming legal firearms owners, the New Orleans Chief of Police claiming that “No one will be armed”, and an elderly woman named Patricia Konie that was violently tackled in her home by law enforcement officers when she requested they leave her home and her only means of self defense from organized gangs that roamed the ravaged city. Ohioans For Concealed Carry would like to thank Kent State Tuscarawas for the opportunity to take part in an event concerning this hotly debated topic. Similar discussions should take place in public forums so that we can all remember the true meaning and intent of the words that safeguard everything else that comprises our system of government: The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The powerpoint files used for this presentation are available for download |