Which is your favorite amendment?
December 4, 2008
It seems like it was just yesterday that John McCain and his supporters were calling President-Elect Barack Obama “not a real American” in a last ditch effort to defy increasingly telling poll numbers and clinch the presidency. I remember a certain “Daily Show” sketch from about this time that lampooned the GOP tendency to distinguish themselves from liberals in this way.
The sketch offered a quiz (like one that you’d find in a teenage girl magazine) that would determine with simple criteria whether one’s patriotism is “real” or not. One of the first questions asked was: “Is you favorite constitutional amendment the first, or the second?”
That John Stewart. He is pretty funny.
He implied that “real” Americans (read: “Republicans”) favor the second amendment: the freedom to bear arms: while “fake” Americans (you know who) favor the first.
While not many politicians in their right minds would openly challenge the validity of either of these freedoms, Stewart’s point really isn’t far from the truth. He hits upon an important way in which liberals and conservatives (generally) differ in their approaches to protecting the individual from the government.
How do conservatives protect themselves?
Guns. The idea is that if the people become oppressed by either their own government or an external force, they will have a way of defending themselves. If the commies invade overnight or if Obama really does hand the oval office over to his buddy bin Laden, then we’ll all be ready with our guns.
Gun ownership is, ideally, an effective check against the government. One argument against gun control on the Cato Institute’s Web site contends that “the gun control debate poses the basic question: Who is more trustworthy, the government or the people?” The answer that this question implies is correct, but what it overlooks is that there are other ways to protect the people from government.
How do liberals protect themselves? Speech. If Obama turns out to be a terrible president, as many second
amendment supporters are thinking, then we can nail him with our freedom of speech and press.
Guaranteeing the American people their right to broadcast their own ideas and criticisms is also an effective check against the government. In fact, this is much more effective than guns are. The pen is mightier than the gun.
When it really comes down to it, it’s important to have as many checks against government as possible. While it’s not that likely in our country, government has the potential to be incredibly oppressive. Look at China, Iran and so many other countries where it is a crime to speak against the government and to own a gun.
If we really have to pick either the first or the second amendment, as Stewart’s quiz asks us to, why don’t we consider this: Newspapers don’t cause more than 30,000 deaths per year in our country.
Joan • Dec 15, 2008 at 2:05 pm
These people are idiots.
Will Albenzi • Dec 8, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Das Kapital is unarguably the most lethal thing in the world. How many hundred million people died to advance its fallacious principles.
Should we ban it too?
CW • Dec 7, 2008 at 7:49 am
“Many of you have supposed that because I think the first amendment is superior , I also think the second should be abolished. You’ve misinterpreted my argument. I qualify my last paragraph ; I say, “If we really have to pick between the 1st and the 2nd…†We don’t have to pick between them. My point is that the notion that we have to pick is ridiculous. I hope this makes my intents clearer.”
While some of us may have misinterpreted YOUR intentions, that is completely understandable, given that most of us, including you apparently, understand that there are in fact many liberals who DO want the 2nd Amendment effectively abolished. DO YOU DENY THIS?
“Also, to those of you who invoked the Holocaust and other instances in which governments have been ridiculously oppressive, what are you trying to say? The Jews under the nazis, and intellectuals under Pol Pot DID NOT HAVE SPEECH FREEDOMS.”
NOR DID THEY HAVE GUN RIGHTS! Had they had gun rights, perhaps they might have resisted, as the Jews tried in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – which was so significant that ANY student of the Holocaust or WWII knows about it? Even if the resistance failed overall, the magnitude of these attrocities might have been less. Even in Iraq today, with many examples of local communities fighting off and kicking out Al Qaeda – do you really think they could do that with speech but not guns?
“To those of you argued that guns protect our freedom of speech, I suppose that’s true theoretically, but I don’t think that most Americans who own guns are at all concerned (or even aware) of the limitations being imposed on and the challenges against our 1st amendment rights.”
I think you completely underestimate those who have opinions other than you. I interpret your comment above to be what is typically meant: You don’t think non-college-educated-rednecks who have gun racks in their 4×4 pickups understand their rights. On the contrary, gun rights are so under attack that most gun owners probably are more aware of challenges to Constitutional rights, overall, than the typical “liberal.”
“I think that groups such as the ACLU defend these freedoms much more effectively.”
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
CW • Dec 7, 2008 at 7:40 am
“Free speech didn’t much help the Jews under Hitler…” And in fact, gun control under Hitler lead to the deaths of a lot more of them. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were able to organize a resistance and fight, at least for a time, with initially only a handful of guns. The premise is, again, ridiculous. NO conservatives are against the 1st Amendment, and in fact, “liberals” are for more speech restrictions than conservatives. Many “liberals” are outwardly against the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, to make this into an argument this into an argument that one side supports one but not the other, and the reverse, is a at best a silly strawman. But it should really be looked at as a dishonest method of debate by “liberals” who are seeking to misrepresent the positions of their ideological enemies.
CW • Dec 7, 2008 at 7:32 am
The premise is entirely wrong. Only ONE political ideology is asking us to choose between one or the other: the “liberals” (which have no resemblance to the “liberals” of the past). Despite conventional wisdom regarding conservatives (by “liberals”), conservatives are not against free speech. A huge reason McCain had no enthusiasm behind him before he picked a conservative running mate was McCain-Feingold, which many conservatives saw as an affront to the 1st Amendment. Conservatives are more likely to complain about “political correct” speech, “hate speech” laws which will get expanded to cover more political speech, measures to silence opposition (like on the radio), etc. Conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as the ultimate way of ensuring the protection of the 1st Amendment, and perhaps that is why some confuse it with being more important to conservatives than the first. But back to the premise: this absurd idea that one must choose one out of two particular rights that our founders determined that the government cannot take away? That’s right: the Government does not GIVE us these rights: The two amendments grant us nothing – they are in fact restrictions on the Government, because the founders assumed these were our natural rights. Reading their actual commentary clears up the meanings of both quite clearly.
JD • Dec 6, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Connor, when has the ACLU defended the 2ndA? Those cowards only defend the rights they THINK are relevant in todays society. Your correct, we don’t have to pick our favorite Amendment. Because like it or not citizens, we are all guaranteed every one of the 27 Amendments. I choose to embrace everyone of them, just as every American should.
Connor (the author) • Dec 6, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Hi, everyone. Thanks for reading my column and taking the time to respond. Please know that I actually appreciate your criticisms and I haven’t automatically written them off. I’ve read through each of your responses and thought about them individually.
First of all, this was not a piece about gun control. I was discussing how the first and second amendments have to some degree become partisan matters. I say specifically that it’s best to have as many checks against the government as possible. Whether I think the first or the second amendment is more effective in protecting the American people is irrelevant. We have them both.
Many of you have supposed that because I think the first amendment is superior , I also think the second should be abolished. You’ve misinterpreted my argument. I qualify my last paragraph ; I say, “If we really have to pick between the 1st and the 2nd…” We don’t have to pick between them. My point is that the notion that we have to pick is ridiculous. I hope this makes my intents clearer.
Also, to those of you who invoked the Holocaust and other instances in which governments have been ridiculously oppressive, what are you trying to say? The Jews under the nazis, and intellectuals under Pol Pot DID NOT HAVE SPEECH FREEDOMS.
To those of you argued that guns protect our freedom of speech, I suppose that’s true theoretically, but I don’t think that most Americans who own guns are at all concerned (or even aware) of the limitations being imposed on and the challenges against our 1st amendment rights. I think that groups such as the ACLU defend these freedoms much more effectively.
fsilber • Dec 6, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Newspapers do not prevent muggers from making you choose between your money and your life. Newspapers to not prevent serial rapists from abducting lone women, raping them, and maybe murdering them. Newspapers do not deter burglars from striking while you’re home (all the better to make you show them where the valuables are hidden), nor do they thin out the herd of those who are not deterred.
Bambi • Dec 6, 2008 at 9:07 pm
>> Guaranteeing the American people their right to broadcast their own ideas and criticisms is also an effective check against the government. In fact, this is much more effective than guns are.<<
But what guarantees the right to free speech?
Guns.
Which do you think is more effective?
You talk and I’ll shoot.
Which one wins?
Free speech didn’t much help the Jews under Hitler, the intellectuals under Mao and Stalin. Tutsis were massacred in the hundreds of thousands by the Hutus, and the Khmer Rouge wasn’t well known for listening to “speech”.
You can’t out-talk a bullet.
Richard • Dec 6, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Without the right to own guns, the right to free speech means NOTHING and can be taken away. Want proof? Look at new laws like McCain-Feingold and the old/new rule know as the Fairness Doctrine that is the brainchild of Democrats.
McCain-Feingold was partially to blame for why McCain did not have much support in his run for President.
Straight Shooter • Dec 6, 2008 at 9:10 am
“Newspapers don’t cause more than 30,000 deaths per year in our country.”
The do when they advocate for gun control. In the 20th century, somewhere between 160-200 million innocent people were “snuffed out” by their “governments” . . The Ottoman Turks, Stalin, Hitler, Mau, Pol Pot . . . all of them had one thing in common: before they committed genocide, they disarmed “their” country’s populations by passing strict gun controls against owning military style small arms. Once they had a monopoly on all force, it was easy to murder the people. Of course in all these cases, the “media” played a hand in helping the murderers (can you say “Pravda?”)Thanks, but no thanks . . . you keep your state controlled press, I’ll stick to my “assault weapon.” That way I’ll die standing up and resisting and at least trying to protect my family, rather than being herded into a rail car to be gassed.
health educator • Dec 6, 2008 at 1:19 am
The original gun control laws in the US were to prevent freed slaves and other people of color from owning firearms.
Go to Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership web page and order their book “Death by Gun Control.” (jfpo.org) They describe how over and over again governments systematically disarm their “subjects” (not citizens) and then proceed to genocide. Disarming is often preceded by firearm registration.
Gun control is nothing other than victim disarmament. Law abiding citizens will give up their rights to the criminals glee–an easier “work” environment.
Active shooters choose gun-free zones because they want to do as much destruction as possible before they commit suicide, or suicide by cop. Israeli teachers are all armed and they have had no school shooting.
JD • Dec 5, 2008 at 8:48 pm
(Source: CDC 2005) Automobiles in USA, 243 million. Guns in USA,283 million. Deaths per year: Automobiles, 40,000. Firearms, 30,000. 17,000 of gun deaths are suicides, 3,000 are accidental. Guns= constitutional right. Autos= not so much. Looks like Automobiles are WAY to dangerous for people, maybe if we ban “assault cars” and ration automobile purchases to 1 every 10 years we can all FEEL much safer. If banning automobiles saves 1 life, it’s worth it. Nobody “NEEDS” an automobile,get up 1 hour earlier and walk,bike, or use public transportation to get where you need to go. Automobiles were invented over 100 years ago, our society has advanced beyond them. Sounds like good “common sense” automobile laws to me. We must do something to stop the senseless automobile deaths in America. Viva La 2ndA!
Michael • Dec 5, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Connnor,
As one of the conservatives with whom you do not identify, I would like to say a couple of things: 1)Protecting oneself with speech only works if the government does not lock that down (as is already happening with “hate speech” laws) and 2)The Second Amendment does not cause 30k deaths per year. Use of firearms by people does–just like people operating motor vehicles cause 45k deaths per year. Shall we outlaw my Ford Focus, too?
Finally, if the pen is mightier than the gun, how come newspapers aren’t more deadly?
a foreigner • Dec 5, 2008 at 2:49 pm
You must be fucking kidding me on this one. I am from a country where there was no freedom of speech. You think speech alone can protect you from crooks in the government? Think again. Guns and violence are more effective in overthrowing a government. Unarmed dissidents can be rounded up and made “disappear” by military, police or gangs. Good luck hunting down armed rebels.
Also, gun control is racist. There was one time when Chinese and Blacks weren’t allowed to bear arm. As a result, blacks didn’t have civil rights, while Chinese were booted by 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.