Why do we treat the First and Second Amendments so differently?
The First Amendment to the Constitution provided for both the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Of course Liberals and their puppet proxies in our courts have turned that second part on its head, making it "freedom from religion" and initiated a crusade to censor religion in public. And of course the first part has been expanded to mean "Freedom of Expression" and since there is not a Constitutional provision for "Freedom from Being Forced to Watch and Even Fund Outrageous and Offensives Nonsense" Expression is then interpreted to include any annoying, obnoxious thing people choose to do to offend those they dislike, sometimes at taxpayers' expense. Based on the First Amendment the Supreme Court has ruled that burning the US flag is allowed, and cannot be legislated against (apparently, though, burning the Mexican flag is not protected under the First Amendment, not that that's a very nice thing to do, but it seems odd that we protect it and not the US flag). Even exposing the government efforts to protect the populace against terrorists seems to be protected by the First Amendment.
But then we have the Second Amendment, which in many parts of the nation has all but ceased to exist.
The philosophical basis behind the Second Amendment is explained by these words from the Declaration of Independence, "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Then as now such a prospect is impossible if the government maintains the might to prevent the people from such a separation. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was the military and there was the militia (not to be confused with today's various "Militia Movements"). The military were the full-time, career soldiers that worked to maintain what order the government needed in times of peace. The militia, however, consisted of everyone else. When the peace was interrupted by war, the people were called on to assist the military in defeating the enemy. Some joined the military, some offered their services in the militia, using the weapons they had at their own disposal.
Times have changed and for the most part the way wars are fought has changed as well. What protects America's freedom is the devotion her citizens maintain to it. We saw that expressed clearly following 9/11. But it remains a clearly-observable fact that an armed populace rarely becomes an oppressed populace. Disarmament inevitably precedes enslavement. The attitude that says, "take my guns," is not far from the attitude that says, "take my rights".
Surrendering that attitude is just as dangerous as surrendering our freedom of speech. When dictators solidified their hold on the people, which did they go after first, the guns or the press? History tells us the removed the guns first. But which do we protect more? We proudly display our freedom of speech, but yield our right to protect ourselves at the drop of a hat.
What would happen if the Second Amendment were treated like the First. Maybe what Vermont legislator Fred Maslack did back in 2000 when he proposed two bills to the Vermont State Senate. The first required residents over the age of 18 who didn't own a gun to register with the secretary of state's office and pay a $500 penalty. The second made military training a requirement for a high school diploma. Maslack never intended for the bills to actually pass, but wanted to make a statement. Unfortunately few really got the message.
If, as Abraham Lincoln said, America is "of the people, by the people, for the people" then we each need to embrace the idea that we each bear a responsibility to defend this nation. The freedom to bear arms means the freedom to think and say, "I am responsible for America's future." And that must never be taken away.
Posted by Danny Carlton at March 12, 2008 7:45 AM