Saturday, August 25, 2007

The Bill of Rights: Amendment II


“Amendment II

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.”

One of the great images of the revolutionary war is that of the Minute Man, a farmer, or any colonial citizen opposed to King George and the Red Coats. The Minute Man was ready in a moment’s notice to stop his work, run for his musket, and engage in the battle for freedom. The Minute Man represents an individual’s right to fight for a new government by taking up arms to oppose unfair, oppressive, and uncaring authority. The image of a farmer’s revolution sprang to life on April 19, 1775 at the Lexington, Concord Bridge when the Minute Men fired upon the red coats and a skirmish ensued The colonist’s strong statement for self-government was immortalized by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his poem, The Concord Hymn. The first stanza reads:


By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;

Here once the embattled farmers stood;

And fired the shot heard round the world.

With less poetry, but with greater legality, the framer’s of our Constitution immortalized the Minute Man and the free citizen with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, . . .” Moreover, the second amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be denied (infringed).

Citizens have a right to fight for fair, equal, and representative self-government along with the right to have weapons. Amendment II is a precious right that must not be abolished.

However, there is a disparity between the Minute Man and the automatic weapon wielding criminal. We have a large, rapidly expanding population, and our popular culture, as seen on television, at the movies, and in video games, is a reflection of our societal condoning of violence. Criticism of the second amendment has focused on controlling crime, especially murder, without proper regard for the fundamental meaning of the amendment. In turn, the NRA opposes efforts at gun control without enough concern for the lives that are being lost to violence with guns. We need ways to monitor our use of weapons, so that innocent lives may be spared from violent crime. The challenge to those who cherish our second amendment right is to find a creative solution that eliminates killing school children with guns, while protecting our fundament right to bear arms.

4 comments:

FREDDIPOO said...

VERY GOOD AND ASTUTE, FROSTY. THE
COUNTRY HAS CHANGED MUCH SINCE THE
2ND AMENDMENT WAS DRAFTED. HOW TO
KEEP THE GUN VIOLENCE DOWN IS A REAL CHALLENGE AS THE VIRGINIA TECH
SHOOTING OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
SHOWS. OF COURSE, THE KOREAN NITWIT WHO DID IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY, LET ALONE THE COUNTRY, BUT HOW DO YOU DEVISE AN EFFECTIVE SCREEN AGAINST THESE PEOPLE HAVING GUNS?
THE ANSWER I GUESS IS MORE PEOPLE PATROLLING THE CAMPUSES AND
SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
MORE LATER,
FRED

FREDDIPOO said...

FROSTY,
MORE INFORMATION HAS COME OUT
ABOUT THE KOREAN PSYCHO WHO WAS
IDENTIFIED IN HIGH SCHOOL AS A NUT
CASE.
HOW DO PEOPLE LIKE THIS GET ADMITTED TO UNIVERSITIES?
FRED

Pappy said...

Fred,

Here's an interesting post with comments from a Washington Post blog about Selective Mutism and privacy laws in Virginia. Helps in understanding the Virginia Tech case.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dot.comments/2007/08/selective_mutism.html

Pappy said...

I notice the report on Virginia Tech, according to Reuters,"recommended the state's law be changed to clearly require information on persons such as Cho -- who have been ordered into out-patient treatment but not committed to an institution -- be entered into a federal database for background checks on would-be gun purchasers."