Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Other parts of the Bill of Rights are under attack--why not the Second Amendment, as well?

I try to avoid saying things like "most foolish argument ever," because A) there is a great deal of competition for that "honor"; and B) sometimes I worry that someone will take such a statement as a challenge to come up with an even more foolish one. Still, this op-ed piece in Ohio State University's student newspaper (The Lantern) tempts me to make such a pronouncement.

The piece is in support of Senator Lautenberg's bill (also briefly discussed here) that would allow the Attorney General to deny any firearm purchase, just by putting the prospective buyer on the "terrorist watch list." No conviction, no trial, no charges filed necessary--Constitutional rights denied without even a pretense of due process. How do our collegiate editors justify this police state madness?

If Gonzalez and the Bush administration show any consistency in their policies, they will support the plan to deny Second Amendment rights to terror suspects, because they have had no problem denying other constitutional rights to those suspected of having terror connections. Those of us who pay attention might remember Guantanamo Bay, where it is a matter of procedure to deny due process and other rights to those accused of having terror connections, and sometimes even those who have been exonerated.
Ahh--well that makes sense--if we haven't stopped the trampling of some Constitutional rights, we should remain silent when the government comes after the rest. Apparently, two wrongs do make a right--who knew?
Although The Lantern appreciates the NRA looking out for our constitutional liberties, we wonder why all of a sudden gun rights get a special pass.

The Lantern believes the rights guaranteed in the constitution are created equal, and the fact that one might come in the Second Amendment makes it no more important than those in subsequent amendments. It is true that the political ideologies in the United States have latched onto certain rights to call their own. Some on the left have taken freedom of religion to mean absolutely no mention of God in public, ever, while some on the right have taken a well-regulated militia to mean an AK-47 in every home. Still, we should remember it takes a significant majority to amend the constitution, which means at one point in time the issues addressed by the amendments were not simply tools for partisan bickering.
The NRA's stated mission is the protection of gun rights (how well their actions line up with that mission is a matter for another debate)--it simply isn't within their purview to lobby for the entire Bill of Rights. Does The Lantern condemn medical researchers who focus on finding a cure for cancer, because they're doing nothing to cure AIDS?

The fact that gun rights activists devote most of their activism to lobbying for . . . gun rights, rather than for other Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human rights of individuals, does not detract from the legitimacy of their efforts.

By the way--speaking of S. 1237, the text is finally available, and it looks like something that Orwell could have written. It has also picked up four more cosponsors.

3 comments:

1957... said...

The part I found especially funny was this: "Some on the left have taken freedom of religion to mean absolutely no mention of God in public." Oh my, how these words have been twisted: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Guess what the Founder really meant was "Congress shall prohibit any mention of the Christian God if even a penny of state or federal funding is involved."

45superman said...

In fairness to our young editors, I don't get the impression that they necessarily agree with that interpretation of freedom of religion--I think they were pointing to it as one extreme (and the "AK-47 in every home" silliness as the other extreme). I could be wrong, though.

opaww said...

One should always remember that one cannot fight wars on many fronts and win them all. Each interests has to be fought individually, we fight for pro gun rights. Others fight for Religious rights, or freedom of speech. Yes they are all important, but the Second Amendment is the only right to guarantee all the other rights and needs double efforts sense it is the most attacked right we have.