Posted by
Pscyclone on Friday, March 16, 2007 4:43:27 PM
The Media
The omni-present media in the United States is an entity that is supposed to serve the people and help keep them informed of what their government is doing on their behalf. Unfortunately, the media has a poor record of balanced reporting when the issues being discussed are counter to its interests, in the form of advertising space, or its agenda, in the form of influencing public opinion. Stories of firearms-related tragedies are front page news and worthy of lengthy repetition. Stories of firearms-related triumphs are rarely – if ever – reported.
Take for instance a July 1999 attack in Atlanta, Georgia. The media extensively covered Mark Barton’s rampage that left nine people dead between two stock brokerages (Lott). This story received the coverage it deserved (ibid). But, the same thorough media ignored three incidents that occurred within the following ten days where citizens used their firearms to prevent similar attacks (ibid). In Pearl, Mississippi, two students were killed in October 1997 when a fellow student brought a firearm to school and opened fire (ibid). Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his permitted concealed handgun from his car and stopped the student shooter (ibid). Dan Rather of CBS News reported only that, “Myrick eventually subdued the young man” with no mention of how, or that he did it with a firearm (ibid). The media will continue to disservice the American and global public until it can balance its reporting of firearms and the incidents they are involved in.
Present and Future Conflicts
The Second Amendment is a hotly contested issue and only becomes more so over time. One need only spend a few minutes on either of the websites run by the Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycampaign.org) or National Rifle Association (http://www.nra.org) to observe the deeply held, rigidly focused viewpoints. The language used in their various articles and resources is deliberately inflammatory to the other side and situations are blatantly taken out of context to the advantage of the given website’s point of view. It is nearly impossible for this Amendment to be discussed in a rational, mature manner because the rhetoric and venom slung across the aisles is designed to provoke an emotional response. This only hurts the credibility of each side and sacrifices the average American to the whims of the federal government and criminals.
Anti-Second Amendment adherents want nothing less than the total disarmament of the American public (Cox). During an interview with “60 Minutes,” Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said:
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it” (ibid).
Charles Krauthammer wrote in the April 5, 1996 edition of The Washington Post:
“It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapon ban is a symbolic--purely symbolic--move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation" (ibid).
Sen. Howard Metzenbaum complained that the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban didn’t go far enough, saying:
"Until you ban them all, you might as well ban none." But, it "will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind” (ibid).
The objective, it would appear, is a totally defenseless public, reserving the “right of the people to be secure in their persons .. “ for only the elite.
Accordingly, anti-Second Amendment groups are working in a subtle, systematic fashion to callous the American people to private firearm ownership infringements. The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban sunsets September 13, 2004 and already there is talk of sweeping expansions that should be additionally imposed (NRAILA). Not to be outdone, H.R. 2038, the “Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003,” bans hundreds of other firearms, such as semi-automatic shotguns, shotguns that carry more than five rounds, semi-automatic pistols, and certain center-fire rifles popular amongst target shooter competitors (ibid). Not only does the proposed Act ban firearms, but certain parts would be banned, parts that fit a myriad of other firearms not explicitly listed on the ban (ibid)!
H.R. 2038 is a historic infringement of Second Amendment protections and the lawful citizens it shelters. Though the Act lists specific firearms to be banned, it does not list the firearms that would be prohibited, de facto, by the forbidden replacement parts. More disturbing is the generalized language found elsewhere in the text of the Act. Line items such as, “ban any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General claims isn’t sporting" and “ban semi-automatic shotguns that have any characteristic that can function as a grip" leave interpretation open to heavy-handed infringements on an individual’s Second Amendment rights (ibid).
Conclusion
The Second Amendment provides for the singular right of private firearm ownership just as the First Amendment does for the singular right of free speech. It has similar verbiage to other Amendments where there is no question regarding a singular vs. collective connotation. The Supreme Court has reinforced this notion by its direct (as in U.S. v. Miller) and indirect (as in Dredd Scott v. Sanford) interpretations. The Constitutional Framers and political activists of early America left a written legacy to satisfy the question, “But what did they really mean?” Even still, the tug-of-war rages on. This issue has become a lightening rod for virtually every level of government and a defining characteristic between conservatives and liberals. There are no easy answers to this issue and it only becomes more difficult as emotion and determination intensifies.
The power to solve this issue – as with every other issue in this country – lies with “the people.” Through the use of their vote, the people can dictate to their representatives what values are important to them, how deeply convicted they are in maintaining their civil liberties, and just how precious this country’s freedoms really are. The people can, and recently have, unseated the unscrupulous representatives who are flagrantly infringing on the civil liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Former president Bill Clinton was quoted as saying that twenty Congressmen lost their re-election campaigns over the singular issue of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (Cox). This kind of activism and personal dedication is what is required for the people’s representatives to get the message about their right to bear arms; it “ … shall not be infringed.”
----------==========----------
Works Cited / BibliographyBeccaria, Cesare. “Of false Ideas of Utility.” Of Crimes and Punishments. 1788. Bell, R. 08 Apr 2004. http://www.constitution.org/cb/crim_pun40.htm
Berggren, Kris. “Fear-rooted gun culture kills before shot is fired.” National Catholic Reporter 06 Jun. 2003: 20. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOHost. M.M. Bennett Lib., St. Petersburg College. 19 Feb. 2003.
Brady. “The Second Amendment.” bradycampaign.org. 2004. The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. 19 March 2004. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second
Cox, Chris. “Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in.” National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. 20 Jan. 2004. 19 Feb. 2004.http://www.nraila.com/issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=114
Docs. “Transcript of Dredd Scott v. Sanford (1857).” ourdocuments.gov. 2004. 08 Apr. 2004.http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=29&page=transcript
FindLaw. “United States v. Verdigo-Urguide “ findlaw.com. 1990. Find Law for Legal Professionals. 08 Apr. 2004.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259
Gooch, Robert Kent, O’Connor, Karen, and Larry J. Sabato. American Government: Continuity and Change. 2004 ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2004.
GPO. “Second Amendment: Bearing Arms.” gpoaccess.gov. 1996. Government Printing Office. 08 Apr. 2004.http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html
Halbrook, Stephen P. “The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment,” 26 Valparaiso University Law Review. (1994): 131-207. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/power.PDF
Interlution. “Famous Quotes.” famousquotes.com. 2003. Interlution. 15 Mar.2004.http://famousquotes.com/Show.php?_id=1053677
Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.
NRA.org. 2004. National Rifle Association. 06 Mar. 2004.http://www.nra.org
NRAILA. “Good Riddance to the Clinton Gun Ban.” nraila.com. 2004. National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. 17 Mar. 2004http://www.nraila.com/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=158
Poe, Richard. The Seven Myths of Gun Control. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001.
Publius. “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared.” The Federalist Papers: Federalist No. 46. 1788. 08 Apr. 2004http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html
SAF. “Quotes of the Founding Fathers & Their Contemporaries.” SAF.org. 2001. Second Amendment Foundation. 08 Apr. 2004 http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm
Stevens, Richard W. and Aaron Zelman. Death by “Gun Control:” The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament. 2001. Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, Inc. 15 Mar. 2004.http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
“Targeting the Second.” ABA Journal. 28. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOHost. M.M. Bennett Lib., St. Petersburg College. 19 Feb. 2003.
Image source: http://www.patrioticon.org/patriotic-downloads-5.htm