Jan 13, 2011
The Second Amendment supports those of us who would CONTROL guns---and
thus prevent the insane slaughter that compromises our security.
James Madison and the Founders of this nation would be enraged to see
the Second Amendment being used to put guns in the hands of the Tucson
shooter and so many others like him.
The debate over the violent hatespeak of Sarah "Lock & Load" Palin and her Foxist ilk is long overdue.
But so is a careful national reawakening to what the Second Amendment actually 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."
Of the first Ten Amendments, this is the only one that contains a rationale for what it requires.
The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, clearly stated. Guarantees
of religion, speech, assembly, the press, freedom from torture and so
much more are natural rights, inherent to the human condition.
But the right to bear arms is granted only in the context of a well-regulated militia and thus the security of a free state.
A National Guard, yes. Heavily-armed lunatics roaming the streets unregulated? Never.
Lawyers and the courts have been fighting over guns for 220 years, since
that great day in 1791 when this magnificent document was ratified.
The essence of the Founders' intent was embodied in the Supreme Court's
1939 Miller decision, the prevailing judicial view until the recent
coming of a hard right NRA-based court very much out of synch with the
sane balance our nation has tried to maintain between gun rights and the
public good.
As we've just seen in Tucson, these faux "conservatives" have allowed
renegade ownership of rapid-firing instruments of wholesale slaughter.
This imbalance clearly threatens "the security of a free state." The
Second Amendment says access to these weapons must be strictly
regulated.
As a free and lawful people, we have the legal duty to end this unconstitutional madness.
Make no mistake: this murder and mayhem has been made possible by the claim to a Constitutional right that is not there.
The assassins and mass murderers who continue to threaten our national
security make ever so clear the reason for the Founders' demand that gun
ownership be regulated.
These are dark times for those who demand sane regulation of gun
ownership. But courts come and go. Public opinion and political power,
like the common law, change and evolve. These murders in Tucson--just
the latest in a long, horrifying, thoroughly avoidable procession of
senseless, gun-inflicted tragedies--underscore once again that this is a
struggle we can never abandon.
And in continuing to do this work, gun control advocates must not cede a
legal inch. We are the the ones with a more accurate "Second Amendment
remedy"... the clear Constitutional demand for a "regulated" gun
ownership that serves rather than destroys the "security of a free
state."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Harvey Wasserman
Harvey Wasserman is an activist and author. His first book "Harvey Wasserman's History of the United States" was published in 1972. Harvey edits www.nukefree.org.
The Second Amendment supports those of us who would CONTROL guns---and
thus prevent the insane slaughter that compromises our security.
James Madison and the Founders of this nation would be enraged to see
the Second Amendment being used to put guns in the hands of the Tucson
shooter and so many others like him.
The debate over the violent hatespeak of Sarah "Lock & Load" Palin and her Foxist ilk is long overdue.
But so is a careful national reawakening to what the Second Amendment actually 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."
Of the first Ten Amendments, this is the only one that contains a rationale for what it requires.
The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, clearly stated. Guarantees
of religion, speech, assembly, the press, freedom from torture and so
much more are natural rights, inherent to the human condition.
But the right to bear arms is granted only in the context of a well-regulated militia and thus the security of a free state.
A National Guard, yes. Heavily-armed lunatics roaming the streets unregulated? Never.
Lawyers and the courts have been fighting over guns for 220 years, since
that great day in 1791 when this magnificent document was ratified.
The essence of the Founders' intent was embodied in the Supreme Court's
1939 Miller decision, the prevailing judicial view until the recent
coming of a hard right NRA-based court very much out of synch with the
sane balance our nation has tried to maintain between gun rights and the
public good.
As we've just seen in Tucson, these faux "conservatives" have allowed
renegade ownership of rapid-firing instruments of wholesale slaughter.
This imbalance clearly threatens "the security of a free state." The
Second Amendment says access to these weapons must be strictly
regulated.
As a free and lawful people, we have the legal duty to end this unconstitutional madness.
Make no mistake: this murder and mayhem has been made possible by the claim to a Constitutional right that is not there.
The assassins and mass murderers who continue to threaten our national
security make ever so clear the reason for the Founders' demand that gun
ownership be regulated.
These are dark times for those who demand sane regulation of gun
ownership. But courts come and go. Public opinion and political power,
like the common law, change and evolve. These murders in Tucson--just
the latest in a long, horrifying, thoroughly avoidable procession of
senseless, gun-inflicted tragedies--underscore once again that this is a
struggle we can never abandon.
And in continuing to do this work, gun control advocates must not cede a
legal inch. We are the the ones with a more accurate "Second Amendment
remedy"... the clear Constitutional demand for a "regulated" gun
ownership that serves rather than destroys the "security of a free
state."
Harvey Wasserman
Harvey Wasserman is an activist and author. His first book "Harvey Wasserman's History of the United States" was published in 1972. Harvey edits www.nukefree.org.
The Second Amendment supports those of us who would CONTROL guns---and
thus prevent the insane slaughter that compromises our security.
James Madison and the Founders of this nation would be enraged to see
the Second Amendment being used to put guns in the hands of the Tucson
shooter and so many others like him.
The debate over the violent hatespeak of Sarah "Lock & Load" Palin and her Foxist ilk is long overdue.
But so is a careful national reawakening to what the Second Amendment actually 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."
Of the first Ten Amendments, this is the only one that contains a rationale for what it requires.
The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, clearly stated. Guarantees
of religion, speech, assembly, the press, freedom from torture and so
much more are natural rights, inherent to the human condition.
But the right to bear arms is granted only in the context of a well-regulated militia and thus the security of a free state.
A National Guard, yes. Heavily-armed lunatics roaming the streets unregulated? Never.
Lawyers and the courts have been fighting over guns for 220 years, since
that great day in 1791 when this magnificent document was ratified.
The essence of the Founders' intent was embodied in the Supreme Court's
1939 Miller decision, the prevailing judicial view until the recent
coming of a hard right NRA-based court very much out of synch with the
sane balance our nation has tried to maintain between gun rights and the
public good.
As we've just seen in Tucson, these faux "conservatives" have allowed
renegade ownership of rapid-firing instruments of wholesale slaughter.
This imbalance clearly threatens "the security of a free state." The
Second Amendment says access to these weapons must be strictly
regulated.
As a free and lawful people, we have the legal duty to end this unconstitutional madness.
Make no mistake: this murder and mayhem has been made possible by the claim to a Constitutional right that is not there.
The assassins and mass murderers who continue to threaten our national
security make ever so clear the reason for the Founders' demand that gun
ownership be regulated.
These are dark times for those who demand sane regulation of gun
ownership. But courts come and go. Public opinion and political power,
like the common law, change and evolve. These murders in Tucson--just
the latest in a long, horrifying, thoroughly avoidable procession of
senseless, gun-inflicted tragedies--underscore once again that this is a
struggle we can never abandon.
And in continuing to do this work, gun control advocates must not cede a
legal inch. We are the the ones with a more accurate "Second Amendment
remedy"... the clear Constitutional demand for a "regulated" gun
ownership that serves rather than destroys the "security of a free
state."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.