Last week in Newtown, Conn., a bipartisan panel of legislators heard from some of the parents of the kids who were massacred at school in mid-December. One father, obviously grief-stricken, asked openly why anyone needs to have a military-style assault weapon with a high-capacity ammo clip.
At least three hecklers shouted out. One yelled “Second Amendment!” and another said “The Second Amendment shall not be infringed!”
Who can argue with that?
Entire books have been devoted to the “real” meaning of the Second Amendment, which reads “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.” I read a book in which an entire chapter was devoted to the comma after the word “arms” and another to the definition of “militia.” The book also argued that “people” is a collective term and so on. It’s an argument that I’m sure will rage on long after we’re all gone. I just wish that the framers of the Constitution hadn’t voted down the proposal to add the words “for the common defence” after “to bear arms.” That would have made my side’s argument so much stronger.
But I don’t want to rehash those arguments here. Those hecklers reminded me of the time I went to a gathering of gun owners and, for just one time in my life, I decided to be something of an annoyance. OK, maybe for the second time.
At a previous gathering of Tea Party members, I had gone around and asked people how many amendments there are to the Constitution. (See if you can get it right without having to look it up and, for a bonus, see if you know what the last amendment deals with. Here’s a hint: It involves something that may come up for public discussion during the current debt-limit suspension.)
I got some amazing answers. One woman thought that there were 12, which would mean that, in her world, slavery hadn’t yet been abolished. Another thought there were 55. (We should have a colony on Io by the time there are 55 amendments.) In all fairness, several people came close and a couple of people got the right answer (27). But, in strict terms, the vast majority of the people who had gathered to protest an administration that they felt had strayed too far from the Constitution didn’t know one of the basic things about that Constitution.
So, I’m at this gathering of gun owners and it was a fairly representative cross-sample (meaning that just about everybody there was a middle-class white guy). I had in my possession a gift card for a local restaurant. It had been given to me by a guy whose son I had helped with math, and since I don’t accept payment for such services rendered, I planned to pass the gift card along to someone else. Why not one of these guys?
I went around and asked people if they could correctly quote the Second Amendment. If they got it right, they would get the gift card. I understand that the language is rather stilted, having been written 225 years ago, but it’s only one sentence. I ended up giving the card to one of my basketball players after she won a free-throw contest at practice.
Most of the answers I got were like “Something about the militia … the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Interestingly, there were more respondents who correctly started with the phrase “A well regulated militia” than those who remembered to include the phrase “of the people” in their response. More than a couple thought it simply said “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I’m not a hypocrite. I can’t quote all of the amendments perfectly, but if there was one about which I got all tingly (like gun guys do with the Second), I think I would be able to get it right, especially if I used it as an argument for keeping my arsenal.
The really fun part came when I asked people for the definition of “infringe.” I kept hoping that at least one of them would say that it meant putting a rifle in a buckskin sheath, like Davy Crockett (after which I would have to explain that such a response would mean that the right to keep and bear arms shall be fringed). But this was a sharp crowd, so no such luck.
At least half of the people came close enough to where I would have given them at least partial credit, but just about everybody over- or misstated the definition. It does not mean to abolish or eliminate. There are multiple dictionaries online and the definition that I found that most closely resembles that which Second Amendment enthusiasts cite comes from Merriam-Webster Online: To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
Seems a bit harsh, but I can go along with that, seeing as how the Supreme Court has ruled that placing some limits on gun ownership is not unconstitutional. So, if by some long shot (no pun intended), Congress passes one or more gun control measures, such action will not be an infringement of the Second Amendment, but a reasonable upholding thereof.
This article appears in Feb 7-13, 2013.
Hi Tom,
loved your opinions article. You have to remember that most people in this country and … well, around the world still believe that a spooky father figure lives in a clouds with a talking snake and a magic garden. They believe that Earth was created just over four thousand years ago, despite the overwhelming evidence that discredits religion, they are too brainwashed by their parents and society to think otherwise. (phew … that was long sentence). The reason I bring up religion is to make a point about something else. That other point is the fact that despite being a superpower about 75% of the population in this country barely graduated high school (from an education system that’s not even in the top 30). So you are trying to convey your point to about 240 million people in the United States who are barely educated to be allowed to have a drivers licence. You have 240 million people who watch The Bachelor and The Bachelorette and Moonshiners. What I am trying to get to is that most people in this country are idiots whom you can persuade that the Earth is coming to an end because of a Mayan prophecy. These idiots are exploited by news media like Rush, Glen, and Fox News who tell them that Obama is a communist, Stalin lover who gets drunk on weekends and party’s at an al-Qaeda frat house in New Hampshire. Here are two fun facts to get my point across, about 54% of Americans don’t know how many branched of government there are in the United States and 44% don’t know that each state has two Senators. Here is another fact that I got from Bill Maher show … apparently 18% of Americans think that the sun revolves around the Earth. I rest my case.
Dearest Gedelirium,
If America stinks so much, what are YOU doing living in it?
Just askin’….
ONE thing in this article is without a doubt TRUTH and NOT leftish jibberish — KNOW the Constitution !!
Reading the constitution is a lot like reading the bible. The bill of rights (or old testament, if you will) was written so long ago that the language it uses is no longer clear to modern readers. Like the bible, it was written at a time when people’s ideas about government were radically different than they are today (Writers of the new testament believed in the divine right of kings and that Jesus was chosen by God and born to rule over all others from birth). Today, the bible becomes increasingly irrelevant because it cannot answer modern questions that the authors couldn’t imagine (what does the bible actually say about stem cell research?). The difference is that the constitution can be amended to change with the times. It was never written in stone. The second amendment did just that, it amended the original document. It obviously needs to be changed again in order to account for modern developments like assault rifles and WMDs. Constitutional literalists risk becoming much like bible thumpers, clinging to ancient, outdated concepts like the divine right of kings to rule their subjects, and are becoming more irrelevant with each passing day.
I think Kentop got it right – the Constitution is a malleable document, as it should be. Nothing in life is static. Everything changes. Ignorance of this fact is frustrating, to say the very least.
Although I may not be an expert about guns, or gun history, I believe when the constitution was written the technology of the day was a flint lock, single shot musket. Mentally deranged or just evil, it would be difficult to commit mass slaughter with such weaponry. Our country at that same time had just weathered a revolution. General stability has been experienced since then, except for the Civil War and the days of Civil Rights in the 60s. Yes there is still urban violence. Sadly due to so many mass killings, the one at a time gun related killings going on in cities like Chicago today go relatively unnoticed. My point being that I don’t think we need a militia to protect us from our own government. And semi or automatic weapons with 30 magazine clips aren’t adequate even if there were that threat. You’ve seen what drones can do, haven you? All the weaponry available at Walmart is not going to make a dent in our governments arsenal. Lets face it. Guns, particularly semi automatics and the like, are toys for adults that readily assist a disabled person or evil person to do harm. The gun lobby, or gun enthusiasts are unwilling to sacrifice any aspect of gun technology in order to save the lives of our youth (future), our talented or creative brothers and sisters. I said guns were for adults….but many gun enthusiasts are acting like selfish children, unable to envision the bigger picture. Being an adult often means one must make a sacrifice, compromise, and contribute toward the greater good. I just don’t think anyone can ever convince me that killing 20 kids and 6 of their teachers, or shooting a politician in the head is a positive contribution to society.
Tom calls the people in Conn. “Hecklers”, I would hope that someone who hold such high esteem for the Facts would be a little more accurate. The father asked the question, no one answered, and the father said “See, no one can answer”, THEN the responses from the Audience came out. They were answering the question…Tom. Tom says he “read a book,” and remains confused at what the Framers had in mind, perhaps he should read the Framers writings as to their feelings on the subject of the Bill of Rights, and “The Peoples Right” to possess Firearms.
I heard a great line the other day: ‘If your first response to the shootings at Newtown is “Don’t take my guns”‘, there is something wrong with you. I stand by that.
What you mean Saleslady is that if someone disagrees with you there’s something wrong with them.
Why do we generally (I cannot speak for every state), NOT allow hunters to shoot game with automatic or semi automatic weapons with large magazine clips? Do we value animal life greater than human life? Is it because hunters don’t want the meat slaughtered? Is it a safety issue?
“Traditional” hunting is the way your grandfather did it. He did it with a shotgun and/or a rifle. Native Americans, before the round eyes arrived, hunted Buffalo barefooted, without weapons. They stampeded them towards a cliff and the buffalo fell to their death. They then developed the bow and shot birds out of the sky. They acquired horses from the spanish intruders and learned to shoot prey from horseback. They acquired guns from european intruders and started killing everything within 20/20 eyesight. Traditional hunting in America today is usually based on great-grandad’s scoped war surplus bolt action rifle, able to hit a grazing deer at a quarter of a mile away. Imagine using an AK-47 to hunt deer with (google it). Just spray thirty rounds out in front of you and collect your meat. Sure, there is collateral damage, squirrels, rabbits and any other varmint that had the bad luck to be in front of you when you opened fire. But you get your buck. It’s the American way. Hunters are just as addicted to their modern weapons as non-hunters. They all have to be strictly regulated and controlled. It’s the only way we can all be safe.
So, Lisa Andrews writes in to say she thinks people should know the constitution, and she gets 3 dislikes. Still trying to figure that one out.
cempiremtn states something that if you saw the tape happens to be a fact and gets 11 dislikes. It’s simple Isadoro, they’re called liberals. You’ll get used it. Actually they’re kind of amusing.
Guns are the most irrational fetish in America today. Very little actual logic goes into any discussion on this subject. Only abortion and saving animals have more irrational discussions.
No one “heckled” the tragic father. Watch the video, and don’t buy the written bias which came from the reporter – as Danehy obviously has. Watch the video.
No CW13, I’m NOT saying that if you disagree with me, there’s something wrong with you. I AM saying that if your reaction to the slaughter of 20 first graders and their 6 innocent teachers/educators is: “Don’t take my guns” there is definitely something wrong with you. That’s what I’m saying.
Sorry to break your heart, but by your standards there are alot of people with ” something wrong with them” in this country. Perhaps Canada would be more to your liking.
Nice bunch of posts, and I apprec the First Amend Rights to do so, including – by the by – YOURS. Here’s my 2 cents: Go after the 2nd Amend if you wish, it’s been tried since it hit the books. I believe, as others do, this prez is clooser than most at taking it down. IF he does, alot of us believe he’ll go after the 1st Amend next…then, possibly the 5th. And then, my friend, as Pastor Neighbauer once said, who will stand up for you? jUST SAYIN’
There are a lot of people with something wrong with them in this country. Well said CW!3, and so true.