By Tom Kando
I recently made another pro-gun control statement on this blog, and someone accused me of not knowing about the 2nd amendment. This inspired me to write the following:
I do know about the 2nd amendment. It says, "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 Declaration of Independence states that "all people are created equal and are endowed with unalienable rights which include Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and 17 additional Amendments concretize these general ideals. This is where our Founding Fathers and later politicians specified many of our fundamental rights.
Of course, there are many other possible human rights, so there must be good reasons why a few dozen rights have been specifically singled out. Presumably, the rights enshrined in our Constitution, in the Bill of Rights and in the Amendments are very special, important and basic.
Many rights spelled out in the Constitution are indeed exceptionally important. For example the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech and religion), the 13th Amendment (abolition of slavery), the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments (extending the suffrage to hitherto excluded groups). The Founders of the American Republic possessed great wisdom. They represent a Golden Age in history, comparable to Periclean Athens and the Renaissance.
At the same time, several of the rights singled out in the Bill of Rights and in subsequent amendments are arbitrary or at least time specific. Why are some rights included and other ones not?
For example, how important is the 3rd amendment? ("No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law."). Such an amendment reflects the time-bound conditions at that time - the revolutionary war and its aftermath.
Many other amendments also seem to address secondary issues: The 12th, 20th, 22nd, 25th, 27th all deal with such technical things as election dates, term lengths and congressional salaries. Surely many such matters do not need to be cast in concrete. They do not represent eternal values, as does the 1st amendment.
That legislators are fallible and can make mistakes, and that not every amendment should be treated as sacrosanct, is proven by the 18th amendment - Prohibition.
Which brings me to the 2nd amendment - often treated as an unalienable right by millions of Americans. The Founding Fathers singled out ONE item for special protection - guns. Why? At the time, this may have been a good idea. And some might add that the right to self-defense is fundamental. True. But no more fundamental than some other rights. How about the right to physical survival, which requires sustenance/food?
Or the right to shelter, i.e. a roof over your head? Is it unimaginable for society to make it unconstitutional to throw someone out of their home, no matter for what reason?
Is the right to a healthy life not also basic? Which means a potential constitutional right to medical care.
What about love, including marriage? Isn’t there a fundamental right to this as well, regardless of your sexual preference?
Or the right to transportation? People often MUST get somewhere. The Bill of Rights could arguably have declared a constitutional right to a horse (back then), morphing into a right to a car today (no more absurd than the right to a gun).
How about a right to a job? And along with that, to the necessary means to a job, namely training, education and literacy.
How about a basic right to own books. Paraphrasing Charlton Heston, an ardent supporter of such a right could exclaim, "I’ll give you my books when you pry them from my cold, dead hands."
Kidding aside: By now, many other countries include in their constitutions some of the rights I have just suggested. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically lists several of them, including the fundamental right to food and shelter. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTlrSYbCbHE
For a long time, the US Constitution was a model to the world, epitomizing progress. However, its priorities are in danger of becoming obsolete.
To quote Professor David S. Law (New York Times, quoted by Max Westerman, Maarten!, 2012, issue #2, p.23):
8 comments:
I really enjoyed reading this blog I can relate 100% with you Tom I just received news from my sister that a family friend was shot with a gun as an African-American who grew up in a racial and ethnic community and south-central Los Angeles I know the dangers of gunfire I am saddened that people want to have the right to carry arms but do not understand how so many people are using guns irresponsibly four instance this latest shooting In Portland Oregon people are at the mall and are not really safe anymore what about the shooting in Denver Colorado when people went to the movie to see the dark night it is scary to think that we live in a world where people want to protect some rights and not others We should want to protect people's rights to shelter jobs Medicare and food and education these are rights that I would rally behind any day thanks from Gail
Gail,
you are so right.
However, the news is not good.
Two news items came to my attention just this morning, items of particular interest to me, as a criminologist:
1. In the State of Illinois, the US Court of Appeals has just outlawed one of the last laws left in this country which banned carrying concealed weapons. In all other states, such a ban was already in effect (as a violation of the 2nd Amendment). Now it’s unanimous (Associated Press, Dec. 12).
2. An update on the US’ incarceration rates and policies: We remain the country with BY FAR the highest rate of imprisonment in the world - about 1% of the total population (and of course vast racial disproportions). According to John Tierney (New York Times, December 11), some criminologists are BEGINNING (!) to question the virtue of such a high rate of incarceration. Beginning? For years and years liberals like myself have made the argument for rehabilitation over imprisonment, pointing out that half the prison population consists of non-violent drug offenders, that the crime rate has been declining for nearly three decades, etc. But don’t hold your breath waiting for significant change.
Tom--your essay is a model of sensible insight. It had occurred to me years ago that some of the amendments were of a much lower order of significance than others, but I had never tried to articulate my objections. But just like the 10 Commandments--graven images? other gods?--many of them are time, place, and population bound. You've brought a lot of clarity to my thoughts. Thanks! Ann Weldy
Thanks, Ann,
It's gratifying to get such feedback from eminent people.
The Second Amendment was meant to assure the slavocracy that they cold continue to organize "slave catchers" (aka "militias") to hold the majorities in their states as property.
The right to bear arms is one of the best rights we have, During the "Cold War" era it was a great deterrent to the old USSR. If they had ever invade the USA, not only would they have had to face the US armed forces (second largest army in the world) but also the armed US citizens (largest armed force in the word). This is one of the reasons for the "Right to Arms", the other is to protect us from our own government should they attempt to change to a new form of government. All members of the US Armed Forces take an oath to protect the US Constitution, not to the President or to the Congress.
I thank Weixel and anonymous for their comments.Weixel's comment sounds frighteningly true. Anonymous' arguments appear less convincing to me. For one thing, the Cold War deterrent consisted of nuclear bombs, not private hand guns. The "Red Dawn" scenario makes for entertaining but preposterous movies.
Wow, this post is nice, my sister is analyzing these kinds of things,
so I am going to convey her.
Also visit my blog poston candy crush tips
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!