MY POSITION ON GUN CONTROL

Here is a sample argument regarding the Second Amendment representing a single extracted paragraph from an article by Sanford Levinson, and will be then followed by my counter-argument. If you wish to read the entire article by Sanford Levinson, click on the following link:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson, University of Texas at Austin School of Law, Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659

"A standard move of those legal analysts who wish to limit the Second Amendment's force is to focus on its "preamble" as setting out a restrictive purpose. Recall Laurence Tribe's assertion that the purpose was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility that the new national government will use its power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state militias. This purposive reading quickly disposes of any notion that there is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. The right, if such it be, is only a states's right.

The consequence of this reading is obvious: the national government has the power to

regulate--to the point of prohibition--private ownership of guns, since that has, by stipulation, nothing to do with preserving state militias. This is, indeed, the position of the ACLU, which reads the Amendment as protection only the right of "maintaining an effective state militia...[T]he individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My position is against that argument by the ACLU. The above argument implies the preamble defines a "restrictive purpose" in the Amendment, namely:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State",

so that those who present their argument above, point out that the purpose defines why the people have a right to bear arms (as part of a militia), and those who argue this point, rather quickly, translate that to mean "Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

That's a quantum-non-sequiturial leap because it does not say that a well regulated Militia requires individuals not to keep and bear Arms, that is, it does not say that only a well regulated Militia can keep and bear arms. In fact, on the contrary it does specifically state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", no matter what the purpose. If in their argument they interpret the Amendment to mean that individuals are not constitutionally protected from keeping and bearing arms, then the Amendment would have to say "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of a militia to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." BUT....The Second Amendment doesn't say that and purposely so. On the contrary, the preamble is simply an umbrella that is used to protect the people's rights (all of the people's rights, individually and collectively) to keep and bear arms. But in no case, can it mean that the States give up their rights to the Federal government in this matter. No matter how the Second Amendment is interpreted, nothing in that Amendment can be construed as a relinquishing by the states of their right to bear arms, and a state by definition means the people of the state. This is a reverse application of the Tenth Amendment which states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

It doesn't give to the United States, all powers not assigned to the states, as ambiguous as those powers might be in their form.

And so what we have is no power given to the federal government by the Constitution for it to infringe upon the rights of the states or the people with respect to the Second Amendment. The rights given in the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is specifically given to and not relinquished by the States or the people. Those rights belong to the states AND the people, for the people together are the states, and the Second Amendment has no room for equivocation or misinterpretation. It is very explicit.

So how I stand on gun control is this: if the rights we have are infringed upon, in any manner, shape or form, then all of our rights are infringed upon. We cannot ignore the Constitution just because some exercise their rights under the Constitution for evil purposes, just as the right of free speech should not be infringed upon just because a few use that right for evil purposes, such as screaming fire in a crowed theater when there is no fire. Just because others abuse the Bill of Rights (the Amendments to the Constitution) it is not a reason to make them null and void. Just because parents cannot control their children who abuse firearms, is no reason to rescind the Constitution. The problem is not with the Bill of Rights, it's with those who abuse those rights.

The Bill of Rights is not the cause of violence in our schools and streets. The cause of this violence is teaching our children violent behavior by allowing them to watch violence through movies, TV, magazines, and in too many other areas, including the arts, as in musical themes.

If you deny the people the right to bear arms, then what about sling shots, plain old rocks, Boy Scout knives, and just about anything that can be used as a weapon? The blame for violence must be placed squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for our children's lack of respect for the Creator and His creatures. They need to respect their parents, teachers and ministers, and themselves. They can't learn this unless they learn that there is another life after this one that could be either good or bad, depending on their choices., through the teaching of moral values, and the value of their immortal souls.

As President of the United States, I will not tinker with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. What I will do however, is see to it that the root core problem is addressed on a top priority basis. That root problem is the lack of respect we all have for one another. Unless we face this problem head on, we can impose restrictions on the exercise of our Constitutional rights and we will not effect the result we are seeking - less violence in our streets and schools. The thought is father of the deed, and we must begin now to address the thoughts that are going into our children's minds they acquired from us, from TV and movies, from our churches and from our schools. Eternal vigilance is not only the price of liberty, it is also the price we must pay if we want to prevent spiritual and moral rot.

Your friend and patriot,

Carmen

Home ********* Back to Carmen For President