OPINION & EDITORIAL
Second Amendment safeguards freedom
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joe Trovato:
- Conservative voice needs recognition (November 9, 2007)
- Ethno-political lobbying anti-American (October 24, 2007)
- Ahmadinejad invite unpatriotic insult (September 26, 2007)
- Play ball now: UW deserves baseball (September 12, 2007)
- Personal responsibility lacking in U.S. (May 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A day of mourning (April 17, 2007)
- VA Tech shootings provide perspective (April 30, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Virginia Tech shootings remind us of bond among all humans (April 18, 2007)
- Video game violence not to blame for Virginia Tech shooting (April 26, 2007)
by Joe Trovato
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
First and foremost: Virginia Tech, you are in all of our thoughts and prayers, and we will never forget you or your loved ones. That being said, this terrible tragedy should not be turned into the political circus that some are attempting to make it.
As is often the case after any tragedy, people need someone or something to blame. In this case, fingers were pointed at the Virginia Tech administration, society, guns and countless other scapegoats almost as soon as the terrible news broke. Whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility? No one but Cho Seung-Hui is at fault here.
Yet there are some who believe in making this tragedy into a political statement, finding blame in almost anyone and anything but Cho Seung-Hui. Many attacked firearms, and some even argued against the continuing relevance of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Just this past Friday, in fact, The Badger Herald published a column entitled "Second Amendment out-of-date."
For those who agree with that author and believe the Second Amendment is an "archaic amendment in the Bill of Rights" and that guns should be abolished altogether, let me assure you, this amendment is one of the most fundamental rights that the nation's forefathers bestowed upon it.
The right to bear arms is not solely about minutemen needing to be able to "arm themselves with muskets at the drop of a hat to defend their nation" as the author seems to suggest. It is also not just about gun enthusiasts, collectors or even sportsmen. There are much greater principles at stake here, and the idea of an armed populace is one of the most "necessary to the security of a free state."
Encroachment on the right to bear arms has historically been one that precedes great tyranny. Historical leaders that disarmed their citizens include Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. Gun rights were taken away in Rwanda and Ottoman Turkey with horrific genocides ensuing afterward.
Why? Because these infamous leaders knew that they could never consolidate power, disregard the opinions of the minority (or even the majority), or commit the atrocities they committed with an armed populace. As Aristotle said, "Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
The people must always be a threat to the government, and as the American author Edward Abbey once wrote, "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." If the government is not cowed by the threat of its own people, then what is to stop it from trampling the most basic human rights?
The dictators listed above disarmed populations so no one could challenge their powers, thus enabling them to pursue tyrannical doctrines. An armed populace forces governments to act in the people's interest.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
So not only is it our right to rise up against a tyrannical government, it is our duty, and that holds true to this day. Now imagine if we had to do that without an armed populace. What would we do, throw rocks at the Capitol?
Imagine if the colonists in the American Revolution had been disarmed. The British (our rulers at the time) would have been able to put down every rebellion. In fact, much of the early strategy employed by the British in the war was aimed at disarming the colonists.
At the battle of Lexington and Concord, the British were moving to destroy a known colonial weapons cache at Lexington. Had the citizens not been armed, it is safe to assume there would have been no battle at Concord.
Also, if the government can take away one right, nonetheless an entire amendment or even part of an amendment, then what is to stop them from taking away another one? It's a very frightening proposition, and it seems to be the first step in a long and arduous route to tyranny.
Furthermore, if citizens are disarmed by law, then what is left? By definition, all law-abiding citizens would then be disarmed, leaving only the criminals with weapons. Criminals will be criminals, and they will find ways to attain weapons, while law-abiding Americans will be left unarmed and defenseless.
No law is going to stop a criminal from getting a gun if he is that hell-bent on getting one, for a criminal has no regard for law in the first place. As Plato said, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
Joe Trovato (jtrovato@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in journalism.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 1:33am):
nice job, except somebody already wrote this article yesterday, bit late.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 5:41am):
May the rapture come sooner than expected. We'll be prepared for anything if we're armed.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 7:15am):
"Second Amendment safeguards freedom"
Baloney. You are no more or less free with or without a gun. Ask Europe
And your slippery slope "what else will they take away" argument is cliche. I dont mean this to be critical, but we have numerous examples of rights and constitutional privileges being trampled on now. Am I any less free now than I was before 2000? Am I more free? How do we benchmark that? No gun makes me free
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 7:34am):
Second Amendment: "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."
Your point is incomplete. You say that guns are necessary to protect our freedom and say that patriots won't hesitate to use their arms to defend their country, but you never mention how random people with guns will organize to do so. The framers of the constitution were insightful to include the phrase, "a well regulated militia."
So, Joe, author yesterday, probably author tomorrow, explain when those who bear arms will begin to form well-regulated militias.
It's a two-part amendment: you cannot have #2 without #1. Otherwise, we'll resort to chaos when "freedom takers" attack our country. After all, the framers never mentioned personal protection, only State protection.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 10:20am):
Good Article Mr. Trovato, though much like marijuana I think we should make guns illegal, that way no one will own one.
- Germain E. Stemme
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 10:21am):
very refreshing...nice article
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 10:23am):
1:33...if you knew anything about newspapers you would know that these articles are written days in advance...good job man
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 10:24am):
7:15...yeah let's ask Europe...look at the violent crime statistics there...what a success story
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 10:33am):
I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms, but some of these militia-minded groups worry me. On the other hand, if these militias were to stage a coup in Washington and rid the country-and the world-of tyranny, then I'd sure as hell join 'em!
R Dubie (April 25, 2007 @ 10:59am):
When a militia does organize, it will need people (average citizens) with weapons to fill its ranks. Without the weapons, you have no militia. You think a bunch of rebels desperate to fight back against a corrupt government are going to have the resources or connections to get an arms contract? Good luck with that.
An putting the control of a militia in the state defeats the purpose, being how in this situation it will be the state that the people have to fight against. So, you have a dissarmed civilian population, who can't form a militia to fight back or put up a resistance to a heavily armed "Well Regulated" State militia, much like Germany in the 30's and 40's.
If that was the case in the American revolution, your country would still be a British colony today. If your citizens willingly make that the case today, your grand-children may very well be loyal subjects of (or peons for)King George III of the Bush Monarchy or some equivelant dictator. And no one will even have the slight chance of stopping it. You can't realy expect forigen aid from other countries to charge to the rescue of the American people, and to thier own mass slaughter against the impressive "Well Regulated Militia of the American Empire"
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 11:24am):
"Encroachment on the right to bear arms has historically been one that precedes great tyranny."
Actually, I think encroachment on a right of free expression has been far more determinative of tyranny throughout history, but I still support infringing on the First Amendment to make child pornography illegal.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 12:19pm):
R Dubie, the constitution says arms are for a "well regulated militia," so are you saying the 2nd amendment is obsolete?
Other than the State, who would regulate militias?
If we were still a British Colony, as you argue, we would probably look very similar to Australia, Canada, or to our own country. Queen Elizabeth is nothing but a tax burdon for this British.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 12:29pm):
@10:24,
Yeah, lets look at Europe...nowhere near the per capita violence, let alone gun death as in America. So get that shot out of here.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 2:15pm):
@ 12:29pm. Fewer gun deaths, for sure. However, Europe has gypsies.
Which would you rather have, guns or gypsies?
R Dubie (April 25, 2007 @ 2:47pm):
Yes, right now you probably would. Lets take Canada, as thats what I know best. You technicaly don't even own your own property, despite paying for it, and taxes on it. The Crown (what the federal government is refered to as) can decide they desperatly need to build a powerplant right where your house is, and you'll have to relocate. In practice, you'll probably be compensated, but not always.
You wouldn't have the second amendment (and here is a good example for you Americans that say gun control is nessicary for regulating illegal activity, and no one wants to take your guns away). Many people had legaly purchased certant types of handguns before a new law was put in place. New gun laws changed the classification system, making them "Prohibited" weapons. Some of these owners were forced to surrender thier property to be destroyed, no compensation, or become a criminal and risk minimum 5 years in jail. Mostly these were more expensive compition grade pistols commonly used in sport and not realy practical or affordable by your average criminal. Others were grandfathered, and allowed to keep thier weapons. However, since it is now "Prohibited", they can't even take it to a target range. And the grandfather clause is only good for the original owners lifetime. After the death, it must be destoryed, no compensation to the spouse, children, or other benificiary.
Writen into these new laws, was the ability of the justice minister of the day to add to this list any weapon he deems unfit for hunting or sporting purposes, thus creating another round of confiscations or criminalization of otherwise law abiding citizens.
As mentioned, this does not apply just to firearms. They way things work, you don't realy "Own" anything. You are realy only allowed to pay for, and use property until such a time the Crown decides you should not have it any more, and should give it up.
Thats what America would be like as well, if it were not for the American Revolution. And that is what your second ammendment protects against, even if by simply making a statement that American citizen has the right to own a piece of property, and the ability to defend this and other rights should the government overstep its bounds while serving its employers, the people.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 3:09pm):
North Korea has really good gun control. Only the government shoots people. But then the people are starving.
Let Them Eat Nothing
http://www.nysun.com/article/53139
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 3:42pm):
Private gun control/ownership isnt a second amendment issue - its an amendment 10 issue. But hey, dont believe me - believe the supreme court:
U.S. V Crookshanks
U.S. V Miller
Therefore most gun control is, for right now, up to the states, that is unless the federal government makes a law that boraches state boundries.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 8:26pm):
"the constitution says arms are for a 'well regulated militia,'"
No, it certainly does not. 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."
Nowhere does it say that arms are only for militia members. Nor does it say that arms should be well regulated, nor that the right to bear arms is contingent on the necessity of well regulated militias. It does, however, say that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Again, "shall not be infringed." Not: "may be infringed, so long as it makes us feel safer." Not: "may be infringed because some ill-educated freedom-intolerant utopianist can't tell the difference between 'A implies B' and 'B implies A."
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 9:10pm):
"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 terminology is not an accident. A militia is necessary to protect the security of a free state. Because this is the case, it is also the case that the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not an amendment demanding that only militias be allowed to have guns; quite the opposite. Since the militias need to have guns to maintain state security, the people need to also have guns in case the militia either gets out of control or is unable to fully protect the country.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 9:23pm):
good article. guns don't kill people, people kill people. there are plenty of gun control laws already on the books. if you advocates of more gun control have some law that you want to argue for, its probably on the books and just not being enforced correctly. and to all the people who say "oh wouldn't it be nice if guns were just altogether gone?" that is why you die and go to heaven, this is planet earth, guns are here and they are staying-so get used to it.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 10:33pm):
Great column Joe, It's about time someone speaks up about personal responsibility!!
I also agree with you regarding the fact that if someone is willing to disregard the laws against murder, they sure won't worry about a gun law.
Anonymous (April 26, 2007 @ 8:45am):
Controled by rules is not the only possible meaning of "well regulated". It could also mean, as it does here, a well armed, well disaplined, or well functioning militia.
Anonymous (April 26, 2007 @ 11:32am):
good article.
By the way, "well regulated" in the parlance of the times meant, properly trainded and outfitted and drilled.
It did not mean oppressively regulated out of existence as two bit pols have done in DC.
Also, nay sayers, think of any violent crime you have read about....wasn't it already against the law..and didn't it fail to prevent it?
The VT mainiac broke several laws, some of them felonies, violated numerous regulations before he ever pointed a pistol at anyone.
Anonymous (April 26, 2007 @ 5:46pm):
Can't we all just get along.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
