This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Unpopular Speech vs. Unconstitutional Reins
on the 1st Amendment: ©2001 by Clifford
D. Weiss, CPO Most of us support free speech as intended by
our Bill of Rights. We all understand that free speech ends just
short of the prank of shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater. If
this exceptional speech is carried out and people are injured as a result, then
the shouter is liable to accept responsibility for his reckless and dangerous
behavior. The same responsibility must be accepted by the person who
spreads a falsehood harming another person’s reputation by verbal statement or
print. He is guilty of the crime of slander or libel respectively.
And again, deceptive product claims and breach of contract may be considered
unacceptable “speech.” We have no qualm regarding regulation in these
instances. But, when regulation is used preemptively and enforcement is
used afterwards to infringe upon the free speech protections of unpopular people
with unpopular views, the American Civil Liberties Union will be the first to
come to the rescue of the “oppressed” individual. Most of us would
have no problem with their provision of legal assistance. Article I of the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution of the “Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.” ************* “Section 1. All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” ************* To be intimately familiar and completely
understanding of the meaning of the “First Amendment” it is important to
note that the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights only protect the people
from abuse by the government - federal or state. There is no “freedom
of speech” protection from individuals, employers, or corporations (or radio
talk shows, newspaper editors, etc.). By the Founding Father’s
design it is a document restricting government.
Why then do we encourage the opposite treatment
for the 2nd Amendment? Just because it has become unfashionable today to
be in support of gun rights does not necessarily mean that these rights are any
less legitimate than our cherished and passionately protected free speech
rights.
Please note that I will now, and forever, refer
to what most people call the “Second Amendment” to the Constitution by its
true designation: “Article II of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution
of the United States.” ************* “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.” [KABA
NOTE] ************* Please remember that the U.S. Constitution
would never have been ratified without the commitment that a Bill of Rights be
included. It was considered to be an intrinsic part of the Constitution -
not some afterthought list of amendments. It was only due to the urgency
and need for expediency during the perilous and chaotic early days of our
nation’s fragile existence that it was allowable to haggle over the exact
wording of the Bill of Rights, while first accepting the main body
of the Constitution in order to set up an acceptable and functional government.
After the failure of the first government and its Articles of Confederation it
was necessary to allow the first constitutional congress to proceed to form a
new government in order to hold the “United States” together.
As per the comment of Jon Roland, a
constitutional scholar currently researching the history of the ratification of
our Constitution, my statement in the prior paragraph on this page is confirmed.
See the quote of his personal communication below:
“As it happens we are just now rendering
the debates in the several state conventions on the ratification of the
Constitution. I have completed New York and Pennsylvania, and am now working on
Massachusetts, and a few other states for which a complete record of debates is
not available. They confirm your thesis about the Bill of Rights. See http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm.” ======================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av
#370, Sacramento, CA 95825 ====================================================== It is unfortunate that the American people have
been indoctrinated (conned - as in Hitler's method - that a lie repeated
sufficiently and thus perpetuated eventually becomes accepted as truth by the
masses) into believing that the precious Bill of Rights is just the first
ten amendments to our Constitution. I hope we would not be so foolish as
to allow our own Bill of Rights to be amended away! Be aware that
if you or I loath that guns have traditionally existed as part of our culture,
or even if a majority of the people decide that guns should be banned - what
notion grants us the moral and ethical remedy to tell other Americans, that do
not happen to agree with us, that we can apply “Civil Rights control/Bill
of Rights control” over their lives? You may not wish to own a
firearm at this time, or even foresee the need or desire to own one at any other
time, but do you want your right abolished to have that option in the future?
As it is better to have a fire extinguisher and not need one, than
to need one and not be allowed to have one - would you not say the same for
firearms? It is not my right, nor anyone else's, to tell you that you
must, may, or cannot own a firearm. Although, it has been well established
and accepted that the government may require that you own a functioning firearm
with all of the necessary accessories for the defense of the state.
When an individual abuses his “right to keep
and bear arms,” in the same way that a violent criminal does, there are always
constitutional provisions in American law available to deal with that situation.
It does not matter if an automobile, gun, knife, club, or a fist is used as the
instrument of bodily harm. We have always had a variety of acceptable,
effective, and constitutional laws to prosecute the violent offender.
Shame on the American Civil Liberty Union’s
neglect of the defense of the rest of the Bill of Rights. KABA NOTE:
There are more than a few patriotic liberty advocates questioning whether the
text of Article II of the Bill of Rights -- commonly called "the second
amendment" -- contains one comma or three. We have researched this issue at
length. Included in the research has been the discovery of federal government
archives that show the text in both ways... with one comma, and with
three. Second Amendment Foundation put
together a simple page that links to some of the documentation showing the
"one comma" version. If this topic is of interest to you, go see for
yourself here: http://www.saf.org/Constitutions.html.
Whether there be one comma or three, the Founders' intentions in drafting and
seeing to ratification our Bill of Rights were and still are quite clear: your
right to keep and bear arms is inalienable -- but you may one day have to
enforce it. |
||||||||