Back in November, USA Today had a poll up on their website that asked what would seem to be a question most people would say, "Well, DUH" and answer in the affirmative. For whatever reason, I got it in my email this morning and had to reread the question. It was so strange that I actually began thinking about why USA Today would even put such a poll up on their website in the first place.
The question is: "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?" Yes, No, and Undecided.
And I had to stop and think before running a bit of fact-checking on the all-you-can-read "totally true and totally unbiased!" Wikipedia. And I voted no. (On a poll that's over three months old, but still.)
And here's why. The Second Amendment protects the right of the People - not individuals.
From Wikipedia:
There are two versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences. The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:[1]
“ 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 original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:[2]
“ 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. ”
Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.
The Second Amendment says, "Right to bear arms", but they don't say what kind of arms those are. It doesn't say, "Right to own and operate a 128mm howitzer" or "Right to sharpen a shovel" or "right to have a breech-loading musket" - it just says, "arms".
The USA Today question is wrong on two levels: "individuals" is a generalized term with no outside specifics. "Individuals" means any one person. The right of a convicted felon (who is an individual) is not guaranteed nor is permitted to own a firearm - but that same convicted felon can carry mace or non-firearm weaponry with them, thus "arming" themselves, even if that "arm" happens to be a baseball bat.
The Second Amendment, therefore, specifically gives "The People" - meaning citizens of the United States of America - the right to keep and bear Arms. Arms meaning in most contexts the weaponry necessary to mobilize in the event of a national emergency or crisis as a state militia. Since Bush's presidency is possibly the only one that has used the National Guard as secondary soldiers in foreign conflicts to any great extent, one could argue that restrictions on citizenry purchasing and using automatic weapons for world combat should be lifted, but only for members of the National Guard.
So for those people who vote yes in the poll, I'm not seeing a great deal of actual remembrance of what the Second Amendment is actually written to be. I vote no, because the Second Amendment doesn't give individuals the right to bear arms, it gives the People (capital P there) the right to bear arms. The fact that arms are being borne isn't the question - it's who is doing the bearing.
The specifics of the Second Amendment give "The People" the right to keep and bear arms. It does not give each individual in the American society a guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. In the context of "the people", that is a legal term. Most specifically against people who have committed crimes against the body politic or others. The People Vs. Joe Murderer is a generalized concept; NOT a admonition for all-inclusive rights to every person. One can't carry arms on an airplane or in an airport - weapons are forbidden in schools and many public places. That's not an infringement on individual rights - it's a limitation on when and where those weapons can be carried.
A three-year old is an individual. A serial murderer is an individual. A parapalegic vegetable is an individual. "The People" are an abstract concept of society at large that is able to determine what reasonable limits one might have on the definition of "arms" and what the phrase "keep and bear arms" actually means. When we see the NRA scream bloody murder at not being able to carry firearms in National Parks, it really doesn't have much to do with the Second Amendment - it has everything to do with not being able to carry things you want to carry into the park with you.
It's inconceivable that at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights that such items as the atomic bomb, laser-guided munitions, flechette shotguns, compressed air weapons and flamethrowers, napalm and biochemical weapons would have been included, but under a technical definition, all of those items fall under the category of "arms", yet none of those things are ever considered in any discussion of the Second Amendment as falling under the definition of arms, for the purpose of the debate.
I guess I'm hammering this point to absurdity because so many people assume (or tend to rant and rave horrifically about those nasty big terrible restrictions) again and again about how guns just aren't accessible enough or are so accessible. But you don't hand a hyperactive chimpanzee a 9mm with a full clip in it and set it loose in a daycare - likewise, there are "individuals" out there who I wouldn't trust to handle a dull spoon correctly.
The NRA, a generally pro-gun lobby originating with firearm manufacturers in the United States designed itself as a marketing tool to promote the consumption of personal small-arms in the United States. As a result, the NRA tends to shape the conversation around small-arms manufacturing and describes it as one's RIGHT to own a fully-automatic pistol to protect one's home. However, the NRA also tends to shy away from the question of whether or not laying claymore mines throughout one's front yard to keep that damn neighbor's chihuahua from pooping in the grass is also protected under the Second Amendment.
We talk about the ownership of handguns, shotguns, and rifles more, but that Second Amendment's shape and linguistic form is intended to be vague to allow the present society and the present standards of that society to choose the correct mores that frame the appropriate use of that Amendment. It means that Americans should never be penalized for having the equipment to fight for their freedom, their homes and their families.
Because really, when it comes down to it, using the Second Amendment to justify the manufacture of a biochemical agent in your home to "keep and bear arms" against the threat of a foreign invasion is just plain stupid. On the other hand, using the Second Amendment to demand that one is absolutely allowed to keep and bear a fully automatic Uzi subcompact or a FN S2000 chambered with armor-piercing rounds on full-auto for "home defense" is kind of silly, as well.
And I am still quite happily a holder of a Washington State concealed handgun carry permit, licensed to keep a concealed pistol on me at all times - except in certain buildings, parks, schools, environments, and modes of public transportation. But the simple fact is - I don't own a handgun and wouldn't be likely to carry one. It's partially because yes, I believe that I and most others should have the right to keep and bear arms - but walking down the street packing heat 24/7 to push the envelope of that right seems ridiculous to me.
Anyway, I'm sure the poll came out at some ridiculous number of 99% yes to 1% no. But the question wasn't accurate. And the query was the wrong query. The question should have been: "Do you believe all Americans should have the right to own and carry guns?" Because really, that's what the NRA pushes. It's not about bearing arms - it's about consuming a product. If it really was about being able to bear arms, there'd be a lot fewer battles fought to be able to own whatever deadly weapon you wanted.
So maybe I'm pro-Second Amendment and anti-NRA, but then again, I'm also pretty sure that there's people who also fight for the causes of the ACLU that really wished the ACLU would just...maybe...possibly...consider toning it down a bit.
As a side note: after voting, it was more accurately 97% yes to 2% no, with 1 million respondents and 1% saying "undecided".
No comments:
Post a Comment