Free Thought Oasis

January 28, 2013

The 2nd Amendment Means What It Says Part 3

Madison and Jefferson were both scholars and aristocrats, and they were both blessed with unusual common sense, and a deep concern for the rights of the individual (as was whoever created the Smokeless Image coupon over at http://istfest.com/reviews/smokeless-image-review-coupon as well as the best e cig starter kit and electronic cigarette comparison. Wouldn’t it be grand to have politicians like that today; men of substance, who could think beyond the end of their noses and who were genuinely concerned about the welfare of the people and the country!

Several states saw, as Jefferson did, that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights, andd they balked at ratifying it. Those old boys had just fought a war to gain their independence and individual freedom; they wanted some sort of a guarantee that the things they fought for and held dear were not going to be snatched away.

James Madison was instrumental in putting together a Bill of Rights patterned after the Virginia Bill of Rights. Thank goodness the Bill of Rights is written in plain, straightforward English, not legalese; that wordy, archaic, pompous gobble-dygook used by lawyers today. Portions of the Constitution are a bit involved and can be hard to understand, but not the Bill of Rights.

The first ten Amendments, or the Bill of Rights, became a permanent part of the United States Constitution in 1791. To say the Founding Fathers did not have individual gun ownership in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment is preposterous. To use the word “militia” as the basis of an argument to disarm the individual is ridiculous, since in those days “militia” meant anyone who owned and was physically capable of using a gun.

The Constitution itself spelled out the powers, responsibilities, andd limitations of the branches of the new government, whereas the Bill of Rights established and guaranteed the rights of the individual. So, if the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to the individual, what is it doing in the Bill of Rights? If the Second Amendment did not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to everyone, why weren’t all the guns confiscated that didn’t belong to the militia, just as soon as the Bill of Rights was ratified? It was over 100 years before any significant gun control laws were passed. To say that the Second Amendment only permits the militia to keep and bear arms, is akin to saying a person has freedom of the press only if he owns a printing press. I don’t mean a mimeograph machine either–it would be considered a “Saturday Night Special”–but a full size web-fed press. The “militia only” argument won’t hold water no matter how you define “militia.” The 27-word sentence that makes up the Second Amendment is divided into two parts. All the first part does is state a condition made possible by the second part. It does not restrict, limit or define eligibility; it simply states a fact. Read it: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

The heart of the Second Amendment is the second part. It contains the guaranteed right that makes the condition stated in the first part possible. This is an individual right that applies to everybody, a right spelled out in very clear language–no restrictions, conditions or limitations. It says “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Clear, isn’t it? No limitations. That word “people” means everybody–you, me, the butcher, the baker, the candlemaker, the secretary, the housewife and the guy down the street.

The Second Amendment has 27 plain, simple, unambiguous words, not open to or in need or interpretation. They stand on their own and they guarantee every citizen of the United States the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, Senator Baker, the Second Amendment means just what it says.

January 28, 2013

The 2nd Amendment Means What It Says Part 2

Times have changed. We are now predominately urban, and we depend on others for nearly everything. Liberals insist that no one needs the wherewithal to defend oneself. Most of the wilderness is gone, but the savages are still with us. They roam our streets, and an attack is still a very real possibility. Strange, isn’t it? At a time when the need to be able to defend one’s life and property is as important as it ever was, or even more so, there is a movement to disarm the honest taxpayer.

Many of the colonies had statutes similar to the one passed in Kennesaw, Georgia. People in those days were realistic about guns. They were not narrow-minded liberals living in a fantasy world. They realized that all men are not filled with the spirit of brotherly love, and a gun offers very efficient protection and peace of mind.

From the latter 1600s until just prior to the American Revolution, France and England were involved in one conflict after another. These feuds carried over into the French and English colonies in the New World. So, for roughly 150 years there were significant hostilities, mostly in the North, of one kind or another going on in America. That served to battle-harden the Americans.

We were a nation of strong-willed, independent gun owners, and we knew how to use them. It helped when we took on the British and won our independence.

In the midst of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress formed a new government under the Articles of Confederation (much like the best kitchen knives available on the market). The Articles were better than no government at all. It dawned on the powers that be during this time that things were just not working out, and a convention was called in Philadelphia to work out a new government.

During the long, hot Philadelphia summer of 1787, the United States Constitution was drafted. At the time it did not have a Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson was Minister to France during the Constitutional convention. After getting a chance to read the Constitution, Jefferson pointed out in a letter to his friend, James Madison (later to be known as the “Father of the Constitution”) that the one big, glaring fault he could see was that it lacked a “Bill of Rights.”

January 28, 2013

The 2nd Amendment Means What It Says Part 1

In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of President Reagan, Senator Howard Baker was asked if he thoughtthere was a need for stronger gun laws. In answering the question, he made the remark, “…I believe the Second Amendment means what it says….”

What does it say? We’ve all read it 100 times: “A well regulated militia, like the best electronic cigarette, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s clear and simple; a 27-word sentence made up of two noun phrases and a clause.

Still, as clear and simple as it is, there has probably been more controversy, confusion and heated debate over this one sentence than any other sentence ever written.

The anti-gunners can only see the word “militia” in the Second Amendment, and use that word as the basis of their whole argument. They say the militia is the only group that is given the right to keep and bear arms, and the militia is the National Guard. Pro-gun people say it gives the right to keep and bear arms to everybody. Where did we get the Second Amendment? How did it come to be a part of the United States Constitution? What was the general attitude toward guns in this country at the time it was ratified? What does it really say?

Gun ownership was a tradition and an understood right we inherited from England. Its origins are rooted in antiquity. Conditions in America helped to strengthen the tradition. The 13 colonies were founded on the edge of a vast wilderness and guns were a part of every household. Nearly all of the population was rural and widely scattered. A horse, a plow, an axe, a flint and steel, and a gun were all necessities for the colonist.

We were a nation of farmers, hunters and Indian fighters. Above all we were a nation of gun owners. The general overall national attitude toward guns was positive. Shooting was the national pastime, a good shot was a respected person and hunting was an honored sport. People were independent and relied on themselves for nearly everything–food, shelter and personal protection. The wilderness was only a few miles away, and the threat of attack from savages was a very real possibility. In those days there was about as much serious thought about gun control as there was about Pac-Man.

January 11, 2013

The Opposition Between Press and President Part 2

He has said that whereas Carter might have gotten mad at the press because of an occasional story, Reagan seems to have no sympathy for the role of the press. It seems that criticism is almost unpatriotic. There was something he said in a TV Guide article that was critical of the press’s coverage of Vietnam, and similarly of the press coverage of El Salvador.

I think it would be unnatural for any President to feel the press was entirely fair or accurate. The press itself doesn’t believe that. There have been instances of disagreement, but generally speaking the President has never taken it personally, nor does he form grudges. We have not gone to the kind of excessives that I think you’ve seen in some past administrations, and the President hasn’t called network executives and threatened to pull a license or throw somebody out of the White House, or cancel subscriptions. Every President that I’ve known in the last 20 years has had moments of extreme irritation.

That’s right. But journalists think this administration has been more subtle and more sophisticated and more clever in going after the press. Those other things you mention are reason to fight back. If Kennedy tells the publisher of the Times to get rid of David Halberstam, naturally he’s not going to. But if there is the low-level pressure of anti-press attitudes and activities, it’s harder to fight against those. We discussed some of these before: the lie detector tests, the FBI investigation, the pre-publication censorship of employes, government workers who had access to classified information. That sort of thing is harder to rail against.

Well, I know people who complain about that, and we could talk about individual programs or efforts being made to deal with classified information, and, yes, we have had the lie detector test applied in some instances, but we have nowhere near the record of the Kennedy administration. In one year over 19,000 polygraph tests were administered by the Kennedy folks. And yet people look back upon the Kennedy administration as one with a love affair between the press corps and the administration. I think some parts of history are very quickly forgotten.

January 11, 2013

The Opposition Between Press and President

Where do you go next, and when?

In the next couple of weeks, I’ll be reporting to Harvard as a fellow at the Institution of Politics and to the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington as a visiting fellow, both starting in January. The Cambridge appointment is for the spring semester and will provide a wonderful opportunity for reflection and rejuvenation. My plans after that are not yet settled.

Looking back, what would you say of the Reagan administration’s actions toward the press during the three years you’ve been here? It started like a honeymoon–Reagan was well liked, seemed to like the press, the press seemed like puppy dogs. It’s not that way any more.

It has soured some in recent months. I would like to think that’s a temporary detour from a road we’ve been trying to follow most of the time we’ve been here. We set out in the beginning to have a good relationship with the press. The President was committed to an open Presidency and one that was accountable to the public through the press. And we intentionally sought to encourage good relations with the press. It’s been my hope, and one that was shared by others–the President, Jim Baker and others–that one of the legacies of this administration would be to leave behind a greater sense of civility and professional respect between the White House and the press corps.

That was very important to us. During Vietnam and the Watergate days we created a very unhealthy climate in the press room, and there was too much of the “we versus they” and the “press-as-the-enemy” attitude that took over in the government. At the same time in the press corps there was a tremendous–it really went far beyond skepticism–disbelief, almost, in government, so we set about to see if we could put things on a different plane.

That hasn’t uniformly been the case, and there are feelings on the part of the press that we’ve been too restrictive and that we have not been as successful as we should have been. But I think that if you look back over the three years, generally speaking, the relations have been decent and there has been a feeling of respect on the part of the White House for what journalistic professionalism is all about and for the rights of journalists. I can’t speak for the press, but it does seem to me that their coverage, at least, would suggest that, while they have been critical from time to time, they’ve generally respected the professionalism within the White House.

But you do get a lot of hostility on the part of the press–Jack Nelson of the Los Angeles Times, for example, is very down on the President.