US Second Amendment v UK Social Contract.

by Englishman 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    The US Second Amendment 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.

    I wonder if the writers af this amendment actually envisaged a situation where 260 million Americans would have something like over 200 million firearms spread amongst them?

    It seems to me that the Second amendment had in mind a regulated militia to preserve the security of the state against outside foes, such as England, something similar to what we can see in Switzerland today, where all army and ex-army folk retain their weapons of war. I doubt whether a gun toting populace was the intention of the writers.

    The UK does not have a gun culture, but this is in no way down to a moral decision ever having been made by our forebears. Rather, when Sir Robert Peel attempted to establish a legalised police force in 1829, he had to dilute this very unpopular move by promising the population that constables would only be allowed to carry a truncheon or night stick with which to confront law breakers. In this way, he managed to push legislation through parliament to allow for a policing force to keep law and order.

    This agreement still, in the main, applies today. Because of a once political decision being made NOT to allow the police to bear arms, it is also implicit on the UK people not to bear arms either, so, even today, gun crime is comparitively rare, mainly due to their lack of easy availability. Indeed hardened London criminals still generally prefer the language of the cosh and knuckleduster to that of the gun.

    From this has emerged a "social contract" between the public and the police that is unique to the UK, an implied contract that the police will protect us from violence if we, the public, don't take the law into our own hands by using firearms. Regrettably, this social contract is now seriously under threat by a manpower shortage within the police force, caused partly by lack of funds and partly by redeployment of police officers to combat terrorism.

    I just hope that a solution can be found quickly. It would, to my mind, be a great pity to see the British Bobby wearing a handgun in his belt. How approachable would our police be to our visitors then, I wonder?

    Englishman

    Edited by - Englishman on 17 October 2002 8:12:1

    Edited by - Englishman on 17 October 2002 8:36:8

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    Maybe this is a case of pistol envy?

    OK, that's a cheap shot, but since I'm a crazy member of the NRA, I took it without checking my field of fire.

    first of all, the second admendment is meant to be understood just the way it is understood by many Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms. One way to demonstrate this is to diagram the sentence rather than parsing it in Clintonian fashion. No one attempts to claim that freedom of reigion or freedom of the press do not apply to INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, do they?

    I couldn't explain it any better than my NRA President, Charlton Heston did at the National Press Club on September 11, 1997

    The Second Amendment: America's First Freedom

    Today I want to talk to you about guns: Why we have them, why the Bill of Rights guarantees that we can have them, and why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press.

    I believe every good journalist needs to know why the Second Amendment must be considered more essential than the First Amendment. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the right to keep and bear arms is not archaic. It's not an outdated, dusty idea some old dead white guys dreamed up in fear of the Redcoats. No, it is just as essential to liberty today as it was in 1776. These words may not play well at the Press Club, but it's still the gospel down at the corner bar and grill.

    And your efforts to undermine the Second Amendment, to deride it and degrade it, to readily accept diluting it and eagerly promote redefining it, threaten not only the physical well-being of millions of Americans but also the core concept of individual liberty our founding fathers struggled to perfect and protect.

    So now you know what doubtless does not surprise you. I believe strongly in the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, for what I think are good reasons.

    The original amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights contain ten of what the constitutional framers termed unalienable rights. These rights are ranked in random order and are linked by their essential equality. The Bill of Rights came to us with blinders on. It doesn't recognize color, or class, or wealth. It protects not just the rights of actors, or editors, or reporters, but extends even to those we love to hate.

    That's why the most heinous criminals have rights until they are convicted of a crime. The beauty of the Constitution can be found in the way it takes human nature into consideration. We are not a docile species capable of co-existing within a perfect society under everlasting benevolent rule.
    We are what we are. Egotistical, corruptible, vengeful, sometimes even a bit power mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual.

    You, of course, remain zealous in your belief that a free nation must have a free press and free speech to battle injustice, unmask corruption and provide a voice for those in need of a fair and impartial forum.

    I agree wholeheartedly ... a free press is vital to a free society. But I wonder: How many of you will agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy?

    I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all.

    Either you believe that, or you don't, and you must decide.

    Because there is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not. That's a "big brother knows best" theater of the absurd that has never boded well for the peasant class, the working class, or even for reporters.

    Yes, our Constitution provides the doorway for your news and commentary to pass through free and unfettered. But that doorway to freedom is framed by the muskets that stood between a vision of liberty and absolute anarchy at a place called Concord Bridge. Our revolution began when the British sent Redcoats door to door to confiscate the people's guns. They didn't succeed: The muskets went out the back door with their owners.

    Emerson said it best:

    "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."

    King George called us "rabble in arms." But with God's grace, George Washington and many brave men gave us our country. Soon after, God's grace and a few great men gave us our Constitution. It's been said that the creation of the United States is the greatest political act in history. I'll sign that.

    In the next two centuries, though, freedom did not flourish. The next revolution, the French, collapsed in the bloody Terror, then Napoleon's tyranny. There's been no shortage of dictators since, in many countries. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot. All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then literally soaking the earth with the blood of tens and tens of millions of their people.

    Ah, the joys of gun control.

    Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder. Yet in essence that is what you have asked our loved ones to do, through an ill-contrived and totally naive campaign against the Second Amendment.

    Besides, how can we entrust to you the Second Amendment, when you are so stingy with your own First Amendment?

    I say this because of the way, in recent days, you have treated your own -- those journalists you consider the least among you. How quick you've been to finger the paparazzi with blame and to eye the tabloids with disdain. How eager you've been to draw a line where there is none, to demand some distinction within the First Amendment that sneers "they are not one of us." How readily you let your lesser brethren take the fall, as if their rights were not as worthy, and their purpose not as pure, and their freedom not as sacred as yours.

    So now, as politicians consider new laws to shackle and gag paparazzi, who among you will speak up? Who here will stand and defend them? If you won't, I will. Because you do not define the First Amendment. It defines you. And it is bigger than you -- big enough to embrace all of you, plus all those you would exclude.

    That's how freedom works.

    It also demands you do your homework. Again and again I hear gun owners say, how can we believe anything the anti-gun media says when they can't even get the facts right? For too long you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semiauto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time.

    That's why you have very little credibility among 70 million gun owners and 20 million hunters and millions of veterans who learned the hard way which end the bullet comes out. And while you attacked the amendment that defends your homes and protects your spouses and children, you have denied those of us who defend all the Bill of Rights a fair hearing or the courtesy of an honest debate.

    If the NRA attempts to challenge your assertions, we are ignored. And if we try to buy advertising time or space to answer your charges, more often than not we are denied. How's that for First Amendment freedom?

    Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a wepaon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. In doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition's tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed.

    As a veteran of World War II, as a freedom marcher who stood with Dr Martin Luther King long before it was fashionable, and as a grandfather who wants the coming century to be free and full of promise for my grandchildren, I am ... troubled.

    The right to keep and bear arms is threatened by political theatrics, piecemeal lawmaking, talk show psychology, extreme bad taste in the entertainment industry, an ever-widening educational chasm in our schools and a conniving media, that all add up to cultural warfare against the idea that guns ever had, or should now have, an honorable and proud place in our society.

    But all of our rights must be delivered into the 21st century as pure and complete as they came to us at the beginning of this century. Traditionally the passing of that torch is from a gnarled old hand down to an eager young one. So now, at 72, I offer my gnarled old hand.

    I have accepted a call from the National Rifle Association of America to help protect the Second Amendment. I feel it is my duty to do that. My mission and vision can be summarized in three simple parts.

    First, before we enter the next century, I expect to see a pro-Second Amendment president in the White House.

    Secondly, I expect to build an NRA with the political muscle and clout to keep a pro-Second Amendment Congress in place.

    Third, is a promise to the next generation of free Americans. I hope to help raise a hundred million dollars for NRA programs and education before the year 2000. At least half of that sum will go to teach American kids what the right to keep and bear arms really means to their culture and country.

    We have raised a generation of young people who think that the Bill of Rights comes with their cable TV. Leave them to their channel surfing and they'll remain oblivious to history and heritage that truly matter.

    Think about it -- what else must young Americans think when the White House proclaims, as it did, that "a firearm in the hands of youth is a crime or an accident waiting to happen"? No -- it is time they learned that firearm ownership is constitutional, not criminal. In fact, few pursuits can teach a young person more about responsibility, safety, conservation, their history and their heritage, all at once.

    It is time they found out that the politically correct doctrine of today has misled them. And that when they reach legal age, if they do not break our laws, thay have a right to choose to own a gun -- a handgun, a long gun, a small gun, a large gun, a black gun, a purple gun, a pretty gun, an ugly gun -- and to use that gun to defend themselves and their loved ones or to engage in any lawful purpose they desire without apology or explanation to anyone, ever.

    This is their first freedom. If you say it's outdated, then you haven't read your own headlines. If you say guns create only carnage, I would answer that you know better. Declining morals, disintegrating families, vacillating political leadership, an eroding criminal justice system and social mores that blur right and wrong are more to blame -- certainly more than any legally owned firearm.

    I want to rescue the Second Amendment from an opportunistic president, and from a press that apparently can't comprehend that attacks on the Second Amendment set the stage for assaults on the First.

    I want to save the Second Amendment from all these nitpicking little wars of attrition -- fights over alleged Saturday night specials, plastic guns, cop killer bullets and so many other made-for-prime-time non-issues invented by some press agent over at gun control headquarters that you guys buy time and again.

    I simply cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come under attack from those who either can't understand it, don't like the sound of it, or find themselves too philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals:
    Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails.

    That's why the Second Amendment is America's first freedom.

    Please, go forth and tell the truth. There can be no free speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to protest, no freedom to worship your god, no freedom to speak your mind, no freedom from fear, no freedom for your children and for theirs, for anybody, anywhere, without the Second Amendment freedom to fight for it.

    If you don't believe me, just turn on the news tonight. Civilization's veneer is wearing thinner all the time.

    Thank you.

    Englishman, speaking of the UK "social contract," said, "Regrettably, this social contract is now seriously under threat by a manpower shortage within the police force, caused partly by lack of funds and partly by redeployment of police officers to combat terrorism.'

    The solution might be for the citizens of the UK to ask themselves if they believe the right to individual self defense exists. Certainly the government believe that IT has the right to ask men to die defending it, yet once a man has finished his service in the UK military is is expected to wait like a patient sheep for a Bobbie to respond to his cries for help and protection.

    You have my sympathy.

  • Francois
    Francois

    Naturally, I feel the need to weigh in on this question.

    Many people attempt to get around the obvious provision of the second amendment to the US constitution by using the "militia" dodge. However, please consider these points: The entire constitution of the US is a document designed to protect the citizens from their government; the first ten amendments are further protections, guarantees for the protection of the individual and groups of US citizens. That is, ALL TEN of the first amendments to the US constitution address guarantees and protections for THE CITIZENS of the United States. How logical is it then to say that one phrase of one amendment applies to the government, not to the citizens? To me, the entire militia argument falls apart right there.

    As for crime in England (and this could also be applied to Australia), please invest five minutes reading the following:

    HOW THE BRITISH MAXIMIZE CRIME by Paul Craig Roberts

    Did you know that a person's chances if being mugged in London are six times higher than in New York City?

    Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the U.S.?

    Did you know that in England self-defense of person or property is regarded as an antisocial act, and that a victim who injures or kills an assailant is likely to be treated with more severity than the assailant?

    Joyce Lee Malcolm blames the rocketing rates of violent and armed crimes in England on "government policies that have gone badly wrong?" Her careful research in "Guns and Violence: the English Experience," just released by Harvard University Press, leads to this condusion: "Government created a hapless, passive citizenry, then took upon itself the impossible task of protecting it. Its failure could not be more flagrant."

    Professor Malcolm begins her study of English crime rates, weapons ownership, and attitudes toward self-defense in the Middle Ages. She continues the story through the Tudor-Stuart centuries, the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. She finds that five centuries of growing civility, low crime rates and declining firearm homicide rates ended in the 20th century.

    Professor Malcolm shows that an unprotected public at the mercy of criminals is the result of, (1) the 1967 revision of criminal law, which altered the common law standard for self defense and began the process of criminalizing self-defense, and (2) increasing restrictions on handguns and other firearms, culminating in the 1997 ban of handgun ownership (and most other firearms).

    In England the penaity for possessirig a handgun is 10 years in prison. The result is the one predicted by the National Rifle Association; "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns." During the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose 53 percent.

    These shocking crime rates are understatements, because "the English police still grossly underreport crimes. The 1998 British (crime Survey found four times as many crimes occurred as police records indicated."

    A disarmed public now faces outlaws armed with machine-guns. People in London residential neighborhoods have been machine-gunned to death. Gunmen have even burst into court and freed defendants.

    The British government forbids citizens to carry any article that might be used for self defense. Even knitting needles and walking sticks have been judged to be "offensive weapons." In 1994, an English homeowner used a toy gun to detain five burglars who had broken into his home. The police arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten and intimidate.

    A British Petroleum executive was wounded in an assault on his life in a London Underground train carriage. In desperation, he fought off his attackers by using an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

    A youth fearful of being attacked by a gang was arrested for carrying a cycle chain. After police disarmed him, he was set upon and hospitalized as a result of a brutal beating. The prosecutor nevertheless insisted on prosecuting the victim for "carrying a weapon."

    Seventy percent of rural villages in Britain entirely lack police presence. But self-defense must be "reasonable," as determined after the fact by a prosecutor. What is reasonable to a victim being attacked or confronted with home intruders at night can be quite different from how a prosecutor sees it. A woman who uses a weapon to fight of an unarmed rapist could be convicted of using unreasonable force.

    In 1999 Tony Martin, a farmer, turned his shotgnn on two professional thieves when they broke into his home at night to rob him a seventh time. Mr. Martin received a life sentence for killing one criminal, 10 years for wounding the second, and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun. The wounded burglar is already released from prison.

    American prosecutors now follow British ones in restricting self-defense to reasonable force as defined by prosecutors. Be forwarned that Americans can no longer use deadly force against home intruders unless the intruder is also armed and the homeowner can establish that he could not hide from the intruder and had reason to believe his life was in danger.

    The assault on England's version of the Second Amendment was conducted by unsavory characters in the British Home Office. Long before guns were banned, the Home Office secretly instructed the police not to issue licenses for weapons intended to protect home and property.

    In the British welfare state, crimes against property are not taken seriously. Professor Malcolm reports that criminals face minimal chances of arrest and punishment, but a person who uses force to defend himself or his property is in serious trouble with the law. A recent British law textbook says that the right to self defense is so mitigated "as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law."

    An Englishman's home is no longer his castle. Thanks to gun control zealots, England has become the land of choice for criminals.

    [END]

    This article really hits where it hurts. Leftists in England have started with the greatest Empire the world has ever experienced and turned it into a second-rate power abroad and a eunuch at home. How can a country that produced Churchill, Nelson, Montgomery, Thatcher and so many other "greats with guts" of history all throughout history come to such an inglorious state?

    HINT: Fabianism got its start in the UK.

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Wow, some real passion there, Natas!

    It's interesting, I must say. Of course, much of my interest is academic at this point in time. I don't feel unduly threatened in my life at all so I feel quite safe to walk the streets at night in most places.

    But, how would I feel if my next door neighbour owned a hand gun? You might find itabsolutely acceptable, you've probably got several of your own and would not understand that I would be threatened by that fact. It's all about culture, after all.

    I can't see that there is any going back in this for the US however. If guns were outlawed, it would only be the law obeyers that would give them up, the armed criminals would have carte blanch to do as they pleased.

    It's a minefield of argumentation, that's for sure!

    Englishman.

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    This is interesting, Francois:

    Englishman.

  • TR
    TR

    Great articles, Nathan and Francois.

    TR

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Homicide Rates:

    South_Africa__________1995___________75.30
    >Colombia______________1996___________64.60
    >Colombia______________2000___________59.
    >Latin_America_________1994___________28.4
    >Estonia_______________1994___________28.21
    >Brazil________________1993___________19.04
    >Mexico________________1994___________17.58
    >Philippines___________1996___________16.20
    >Taiwan________________1996____________8.12
    >N._Ireland____________1994____________6.09
    >United_States_________1999____________5.70
    >Argentina_____________1994____________4.51
    >Hungary_______________1994____________3.53
    >Finland_______________1994____________3.24
    >Portugal______________1994____________2.98
    >Mauritius_____________1993____________2.35
    >Israel________________1993____________2.32
    >Scotland______________1994____________2.24
    >Canada________________1996____________2.1
    >Slovenia______________1994____________2.01
    >Australia_____________1994____________1.86
    >Singapore_____________1994____________1.71
    >France________________1998____________1.64
    >South_Korea___________1994____________1.62
    >Italy_________________1998____________1.54
    >Australia_____________1998____________1.5
    >New_Zealand___________1993____________1.47
    >Belgium_______________1990____________1.41
    >England_and_Wales_____1998____________1.30
    >Sweden________________1993____________1.30
    >Denmark_______________1993____________1.21
    >Germany_______________1998____________1.18
    >Austria_______________1994____________1.17
    >Greece________________1994____________1.14
    >France________________1994____________1.12
    >Netherlands___________1994____________1.11
    >Switzerland___________1998____________1.06
    >Kuwait________________1995____________1.01
    >Norway________________1993____________0.97
    >Spain_________________1993____________0.95
    >Japan_________________1994____________0.62
    >Ireland_______________1991____________0.62
    >__________________________________________

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    Please identify the source of your statistics.

  • talley
    talley

    Thank you, Nathan and Francois. The lessons of history and experience both teach that an individual's freedom and safety come from only one source; the individual person themselves. talley of the protected by S&W class.

  • Englishman

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit