This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Professor Amitai Etzioni: No Speech, No
Guns (Part I) by Larry Pratt Prof. Amitai Etzioni: No
Speech, No Guns -- Part I The suggestion is so stupid, so outrageous, so intellectually dishonest, so
off-the-wall, that when I heard about it I didn't believe it. It had to be a
joke, a satire, a spoof. But, then I read his proposal. And, sure enough,
incredibly, well -- I'm getting ahead of myself. First, a little background. In recent years, a growing number of Liberal
scholars have concluded that the so-called "Standard Model" is
correct, that the Second Amendment does, indeed, protect an individual right to
keep and bear arms. Among these individuals are: University of Texas Law
Professor Sanford Levinson; Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Laurence Tribe;
William Van Alstyne of Duke University; and Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar. Needless to say, the hard-core gun-grabbers -- who could not care less about
the truth or the Constitution -- are going nuts over this development. And chief
among these neo-Know Nothings is Amitai Etzioni, the former President of the
American Sociological Association who now teaches sociology at George Washington
University. OK. So, how, exactly, is Prof. Etzioni dealing with his colleagues who have
discovered the truth about the Second Amendment and are admitting it publicly?
Is he doing his own research and refuting their scholarship? Not at all. Instead
he is suggesting -- that they shut up! In an article on the web site of the Chronicle Of Higher Education
(April 6, 2001), titled Are Liberal Scholars Acting Irresponsibly On Gun
Control?, Etzioni asks: "Are revisionist, liberal legal scholars acting
irresponsibly by handing rhetorical ammo to gun proponents? Are these scholars'
historical interpretations helping gun advocates take potshots at the Supreme
Court's longstanding support of state gun control?" Referring to some who have noted that the private ownership of guns was
advocated by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George
Mason, Etzioni says: "My response is that ours is a government by laws
which cannot be trumped by quotations from even the most established patriotic
icons." In other words: The Founding Fathers be damned! To Etzioni,
evidently, the views and intentions of these men who gave us the highest,
man-made, positive law of our land -- our Constitution -- don't matter! Saying that the Liberal scholars who now believe in the "Standard
Model" of the Second Amendment are "making the equivalent argument
that the earth is flat after all," Etzioni says: "But, in the case of
gun control, although no one would contest the revisionist scholars' right to
engage in such research, I can't help but wonder if they are right to
engage in such research.... With so much at stake, should scholars refrain from
conducting studies that might have grave unsettling social consequences?" Proving, with a vengeance, that analogies are not his strong suit, Etzioni
says the social consequences of actions cannot be ignored. Thus, he asks:
"Would my colleagues put on their web site a study demonstrating how to
make the Ebola virus in a kitchen sink? Would they publish ways to make nerve
gas in one's basement? As I see it, when the results of a publication may well
be fatal on a large scale, great weight should be given to social
prudence." Say what?! Publishing research defending the "Standard Model" of the Second
Amendment is like telling folks how to make a deadly virus and nerve gas?! And
this Constitutional scholarship could be "fatal on a large scale"? I
don't know what Prof. Etzioni has been smoking. But, he definitely inhaled --
many times! Etzioni concludes his loony-tunes proposal by asking his pro-"Standard
Model" colleagues in law schools to "consider whether they should
devote themselves to an academic pursuit other than undermining the Supreme
Court rulings that have rendered gun control possible and legitimate." He
insists, however, presumably with a straight face, that what he is suggesting
"gives no offense to the ethos of science or scholarship." But, this assertion is preposterous. Putting aside the question of how often
this is actually been followed, the stated ethos, the essence, of science,
scholarship and academic freedom has been that the truth must be vigorously
pursued regardless of where the truth leads and whatever the consequences of
this truth. Thus, what Prof. Etzioni proposes is as offensive as one can imagine
to the ethos of science and scholarship. And Etzioni's outrageous proposals do not, alas, end here. He is the author
of a document titled "The Case For Domestic Disarmament" in
which he advocates "legislation to remove guns from private hands."
Praising several countries for doing what he favors, Etzioni says: "Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands and,
ultimately, from much of the police force. Once guns are hard to obtain and the
very possession and sale of them are offenses, the level of violent crime will
fall significantly." Etzioni assures us that domestic disarmament can be "rapidly
implemented." But, "the initial cost may be high especially if one is
to buy out all existing arms manufacturers and arms now in private hands at some
publicly set price, rather than confiscate them. This is a one time cost." Etzioni says he would allow gun collectors to be "accommodated by
provisions allowing them to keep their collection, but rendering them
inoperative (cement in the barrel is my favorite technique)." And hunters
"might be allowed... to use long guns that cannot be concealed, without
sights or powerful bullets, making the event much more 'sporting.'" As for those Etzioni sneeringly refers to as "super-patriots, who still
believe they need their right to bear arms to protect us from the Commies,"
he says they "might be deputized and invited to participate in the National
Guard, as long as the weapons with which they are trained are kept in state
controlled armories. All this is acceptable, as long as all other guns and
bullets are removed from private hands." Etzioni says that if nationwide domestic disarmament cannot be achieved
immediately, the "best way" to proceed "is to introduce it in
some major part of the country, say, the Northeast.... The rapid fall in violent
crime sure to follow will make ever more states demand that domestic disarmament
be extended to their region.... If domestic disarmament is ever implemented in
some parts, it will soon become an irresistible, natural public policy." Truly these are the ravings of a dangerous, utopian totalitarian whose views
would be more at home in Stalin's Russia than in the United States of America.
In the next few columns I will examine more of Etzioni's views, in some detail,
based on a lengthy interview we conducted with the "Nutty Professor." A footnote: At one time Etzioni's "Communitarian Platform"
listed among its signers Richard John Neuhaus who is now Editor-In-Chief of First
Things magazine. But, in an interview, Neuhaus tells us that Etzioni's call
for domestic disarmament "doesn't sound like anything I'd want to be
associated with." He says that he once did sign on to this Platform,
"but then we had some unpleasantness because a number of other statements
were issued... in which he used my name. And I made it very clear this was not
acceptable." Prof. Amitai Etzioni Mocks
And Ridicules The God-Given Right And Duty Of Self-Defense: -- Part II When we interviewed Prof. Etzioni, and alluded to our God-given right to bear
arms and self-defense, he says that if we believe this we are "one of those
fanatics, I guess." Mocking our belief, Etzioni asks, sneeringly: "God
speaks to you, eh? When did He talk to you last?" He says he believes in
God but denies that God has spoken to us: "God does not speak to you. I don't know what God told you. I know that in
this country we live by the law. And God gave us the laws and did not give you
arms -- no, He didn't. God is a loving and peaceful creature. He doesn't go
around shooting people." Well, now. It's difficult to imagine a more theologically confused series of
statements than these. First, God is not a "creature." He is
the Creator! Also, Exodus 15:3 tells us: "The LORD is a man of war:
the LORD is his name." The Lord Jesus Christ tells us, in Matthew 10:34:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
but a sword." And while it's true that Scripture says nothing about God
going around "shooting people," He did, at one time, destroy, by a
worldwide flood, almost every human being because He "saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." But, back to the question of whether God talks to us about self-defense? Our
answer would be a definite yes -- and about the defense of others. Indeed, God
speaks to all, in His Word, the Bible. But, He is heard, and obeyed, only by
believers. In Exodus 22:2-3, God tells us: "If a thief be found breaking in, and be
smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen
upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full
restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." One
conclusion which can be drawn here is that a threat to our life is to be met
with lethal force. In Proverbs 25:26, God tells us: "A righteous man falling down before
the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring." Certainly, we
would be faltering before the wicked if we choose to be unarmed and unable to
resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have
no right to hand over our God-given life to the unrighteous. In the New Testament, in Luke 22:36, we are told this about our Lord Jesus
Christ: "Then said he unto them, 'But now, he that hath a purse, let him
take it, and likewise his script: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.'" At that time the sword was the finest offensive
weapon available to an individual soldier -- the equivalent then of a military
rifle today. In his excellent new book A Nation Of Cowards (Accurate Press, 2001),
Jeff Snyder says: "Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once
widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when
offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to
breach one's duty to one's community." He quotes a sermon given in
Philadelphia in 1747 which unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself
with suicide: "He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority
for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self
murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and
Nature itself teaches every creature to defend himself." Amen! This same point is made at greater length by the great Puritan commentator on
the Bible, Thomas Ridgeley (1667-1734). In his commentary on the Westminster
Larger Catechism, he, first, quotes the Catechism itself. Question 135 asks:
"What are the duties required in the Sixth Commandment?" (the
Commandment that prohibits killing) The Catechism answer is, in part: "The
duties... are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours to preserve the life
of ourselves, and others... by just defence thereof against violence...
succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent." Question 136 asks: "What are the sins forbidden in the Sixth
Commandment?" The answer, in part: "The sins forbidden... are... the
neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of
life." In his commentary on Sixth Commandment duties, Ridgeley says: "We should
use all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others
[because].... man is the subject of the divine image.... We are also to defend
those who are in imminent danger of death.... Moreover, in some instances, a
person may kill another in his own defence, without being guilty of the breach
of this commandment...." Ridgeley says that if we cannot disarm an enemy threatening our life, or flee
from him, "we do not incur the least guilt, or break this commandment, if
we take away his life to preserve our own; especially if we were not first in
the quarrel, nor gave occasion to it by any injurious or unlawful
practices." So, again, Prof. Etzioni, the answer to your question is a resounding and
fervent yes! Though you may mock and ridicule us, there is a God-given right to
self-defense and a God-ordered duty to defend ourselves and other innocents. Oh,
ye of little faith, sir! Prof. Amitai Etzioni: Wrong
On The Supreme Court And The Second Amendment -- Part III Time magazine once referred to Amitai Etzioni as "the everything
expert." But, in a lengthy interview we conducted with the George
Washington University professor of sociology, he proved to be an expert on
nothing and wrong about virtually everything he said. For openers, regarding the Second Amendment, Etzioni says: "What I'm saying is that the issue, if we do have the right to bear arms as
individuals, came up before the highest court in the land five times over 125
years. In each single case, without exception, the court ruled there is no such
right... It's what the highest court in the land ruled again and again and again
without exception. "Now, I know there are people out there who like to pick and choose. If they
like what the court says... they say that's fine, that's the ultimate authority.
If they don't like it, they say the court is not the one to rule. That's not the
way we do things here. There is a rule of law and the Supreme Court is the one
who gives the final interpretation. The Court ruled unanimously again and again
that there is no individual right to bear arms. Read it any way you want. That
is the truth." But, of course, what Etzioni says is not the truth. The truth is that
not even one Supreme Court ruling has said, "unanimously," what
the professor here asserts so confidently and categorically. For example, U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) involved members of the Ku Klux
Klan depriving black victims of their basic rights such as freedom of assembly
and to bear arms. The court decided that neither the First nor Second Amendments
applied to the states, but were limitations on Congress. Thus the federal
government had no power to correct these violations, rather the citizens had to
rely on the police power of the states for their protection from private
individuals. This case is often misunderstood or quoted out of context by claiming that it
held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. However,
the court also said this about the First Amendment. The court explained that
these rights weren't granted or created by the Constitution; they existed prior
to the Constitution. In Presser v. Illinois (1886) Herman Presser was found guilty of
parading a group of armed men with approval of the state of Illinois. He claimed
this was unconstitutional and violated his Second Amendment right. Though the
court stated Second Amendment issues were not involved, it reaffirmed that it
applied as a limitation only on the national government. This ruling expressed
the belief that the right to keep and bear arms existed independently of the
Second Amendment for "all citizens capable of bearing arms," and the
states could not infringe upon this right. In U.S. v Miller (1939), Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged
with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the
transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such
arms. In the entire text of this ruling there is no mention of the words
"state militia" or "National Guard." In fact, this ruling
interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia-type
weapons. In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1991), the Court observed that the words
"the people" are used in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth
amendments. Each use refers to an individual, not a collective, right. Finally, while Etzioni is critical of those who "pick and choose"
among court decisions, he, too, picks and chooses. When it is pointed out to him
that the courts once also upheld slavery, he says: "That's right." Q: So, if we were talking back then, would you now be defending slavery
because it was upheld by the courts? A: You're going to pick and choose now because 100 years ago there was a
mistaken decision? So, now you're going to dismiss all court decisions? Hmmmm. A "mistaken decision" eh? Sounds like he is picking and
choosing. But, no, we are not saying all court decisions should be dismissed because
some have been wrong. What we are saying is that the Second Amendment protects
an individual right to keep and bear arms, a right that existed prior to the
Constitution. And, thus, this individual right cannot, must not, be infringed!
Period! U.S. v. Lopez is certainly a case Etzioni would like to ignore as he
picks and chooses. The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that gun free school zones
imposed by Congress were unconstitutional; under the Tenth Amendment, Congress
has no authority to legislate gun free zones. Congress certainly thought it O.K.
to pick and choose. They reenacted the gun ban the following year. Pity that of all the goofy Supreme Court decisions from which to pick and
choose, Congress took a decision that was constitutional and overrode it. They
had the authority to override the Court, even if their law was both in conflict
with the Constitution and common sense (criminals are safer in such zones and
hardly likely to obey the ban). The way to resolve conflicts between branches of government is at the polls,
not by the elite hiding information that is "not suitable" for the
masses as Etzioni argues. |
||||||||
