|
|
|
Jewish World Review Jan. 17, 2013/ 6 Shevat, 5773 The war between the amendments By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The horrific Apparently, in the sequential thinking of Many liberals believe there is no need to own semi-automatic assault rifles, magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or even semi-automatic handguns. They argue that hunters and sportsmen don't need such rapid-firing guns to kill their game -- and that slower-firing revolvers and pump- or bolt-action rifles are sufficient for home protection. Implicit to the liberal argument for tighter gun control is the belief that the ability to rapidly fire off lots of bullets either empowers -- or indeed encourages -- mass murderers to butcher the innocent. Most conservatives offer rebuttals to all those points. Criminals will always break almost any law they choose. Homeowners should have the right to own weapons comparable to those of criminals, who often pack illicit semi-automatic handguns. If mass murders are the real concern, should ammonium nitrate be outlawed, given that Liberals counter that just as free speech is curtailed (you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium), the constitutional right to bear arms is no more infringed upon by the banning of semi-automatic, large magazine firearms than it is by current prohibitions against heavy machine guns. Conservatives reply that the chief purpose of the Second Amendment was not necessarily just to ensure personal protection from criminals or the freedom to hunt with firearms, but in fact to guarantee that a well-armed populace might enjoy some parity to an all-powerful, centralized government. To the Founders, the notion that individual citizens had recourse to weapons comparable to those of federal authorities was a strong deterrent to government infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms -- rights that cannot simply be hacked away by presidential executive orders. That may be why the brief Second Amendment explicitly cites the desirability of a militia. By intent, it was followed by the Third Amendment, which restricts the rights of an abusive government to quarter federal troops in citizens' homes. So which amendment should we begin pruning to deal with monsters like those at The Just as semi-automatic weapons mark a technological sea change from the flintlock muskets of the Founders' era, computer-simulated video dismemberment is a world away from the spirited political pamphleteering of the 18th century. If we talk of restricting the Second Amendment to protect us against modern technological breakthroughs, why not curtail the First Amendment as well? How about an executive order to If conservatives have ensured that there are millions of semi-automatic assault weapons in American society, liberals' unprecedented expansions of free expression have led to an alarming number of unhinged Americans on our streets, nursed on sick games like "Grand Theft Auto" and hours of watching odious movies such as "Natural Born Killers." Legislating away the evil in men's heads and hearts can be a tricky -- and sometimes unconstitutional -- business.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and military historian, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. Comment by clicking here. © 2013, TMS |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||||
