American All Call
The Second Amendment -
Distorted
By Sam Frescoe,
Veteran’s Recall
http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/
I was cruising the net and came
across an article that captured me. It was one of those articles that I was not
looking for, but I had to click on the link anyway. Have you ever clicked on a
link and hoped to be challenged? Me too.
On 2 October 2015, Adam Gopnik
wrote an article titled “The
Second Amendment Is a Gun-Control Amendment” about the American discourse
after the Umpqua Community College shooting. My intention with this blog post
is to walk through the article in a point-by-point fashion.
Before I get started, let me
introduce the author. Adam Gopnik is a
staff writer for the New Yorker since 1986. Mr. Gopnik has “written fiction, humor, book reviews, profiles, and
reported pieces from
abroad.” He is a book writer and recipient of the medal of Chevalier of the
Order of Arts and Letters. It
seems that Mr. Gopnik is a creative and successful literary mind.
The opening paragraph is a well done piece of
rhetoric. However, I am not satisfied. First, if it “hardly seems worth the
energy” to make a point about what happened, then what is the point of the
article? Second, the President is not the national mourner. Lecturing is not
mourning. If he were, then perhaps a
moment of silence, a statement of moral truth, or to reach out to comfort those
suffering, would come from the President. But, he did not, and, in turn, he is
not the national mourner. Third, for this President to claim “we know how to
fix this” without clearly stating the moral right/wrong is remarkably proud and
conceited. Fourth, to lay this event at the feet of “one political party” is
inexcusably irresponsible. The shooter committed the acts, not any political
party. Fifth, the killing of others without cause is irrational and immoral. It
is absolutely wrong. Additionally, to suggest that gun rights (the Second
Amendment of the Constitution) is on par with an irrational and paranoid fetish
is unfounded and highly arrogant. Who are you to make such a judgment?
The second paragraph is equally troubling.
First, the author correctly points out the shooters mental health and makes reference
to his religious claims. Second, the author states that “we cheerfully supply
him with military-style weapons to express his rage.” Sir, let’s have the names
of those that supplied the weapons, and the evidence that those suppliers
reasonably knew of the shooters intentions, and upon knowing those intentions
elected not to prevent the resulting crime in any way. If you are/were
withholding information, then you are just as guilty as the shooter. Third, do
you really want me to believe that “only in America” is a qualifying statement
because you are the author? I think not. Fourth, I like the quote, and agree
that the primary motive is hate.
The third paragraph is the most troubling
thus far. Getting straight to the point, the Constitution of the United States
is the unique framework of our representative republic. It was written as an inherent
good, fixed in its nature, yet amendable through a lengthy and involved
process. You, as an American or otherwise, have no right to simply discard the
supreme law of the land because it does not suit your views concerning a
specific instance in time. Finally, if your supporting evidence for this
suggestion is to quote an Australian comedian, then I suggest leaving your
American passport in your seat as you leave the country.
The fourth paragraph expresses a
false idea. The author’s suggestion that the phrase “well regulated” in some
way nullifies the Second Amendment is not backed by law, common practice,
American tradition, understanding of the language (written and spoken), nor the
framers as recorded in the Federalist Papers. Additionally, to state the NRA
would support your conclusion, based on a special circumstance, is highly
suspect. Especially, sense the NRA did not contribute to your article in any
way. In short, your straw man has fallen over.
The fifth paragraph uses a
dissenting view from the Supreme Court to support what the author would like to
have seen decided. Sorry Adam, the Supreme Court does not work exclusively for
you. Besides, in America, we don’t follow the lead of the losers.
The sixth paragraph seems to
continue to press the argument that the right to bear arms is connected to the
existence of a militia. Exactly how does the statement put the right at the
feet of a militia? Given the common language at the time of the amendment, and
the desire of the Supreme Court to go back to that common language, seems to be
entirely reasonable to determine the application of the Amendment. The argument
of the author is based on an opinion of the language relative to modern times.
Given this basis, then how can anyone expect to understand the true meaning of
the statement?
The seventh, inset, and eighth
paragraphs point to an assertion that the ownership and use of firearms for
personal reasons is a new right based on the dissent of the deciding opinion. I
am troubled that the author routinely picks from dissenting opinions when that information
fits a specific narrative: the second amendment provides for gun control in
order to prevent future mass school shootings.
The final paragraph claims the
author’s analysis is sound in favor of history and common sense. First, the
history of the Second Amendment goes back to 1779, not just to the 1980’s. I
respectfully submit that your reading of the amendment outside the firm
understanding of the language at the time is a significant shortfall
(unmentioned) in your analysis.
The final observation, and the
most troubling of all, is the promotion of the idea that the Supreme Court can
be used as a means to pass law outside of Congressional action with Executive
agreement is to surrender the Constitution to an oligarchy. In this United
States of America, a constitutional representative republic, the Supreme Court
and the Congress (and the President) have specific roles and limits.
Article-3, Section-2, Line-1 states “The judicial power shall
extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the
Laws of the United States, and Treaties made.”
Article-1, Section-1, Line-1 states “All legislative Powers
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” There is no
linear rationale that allows the Supreme Court to legislate. At the same time,
there is no linear rationale that allows the Congress to pronounce judgement.
Included for emphasis – Article-2, Section-3 states that the
Executive (meaning the President and all subordinates) “shall take Care that
the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Going Forward
After reading and rereading this article I
conclude that this piece is a creative work, based in non-fiction, meant to
stir an emotional response according to a political narrative.
Your View
I invite you to tell me what you
believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com. I am
looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American
discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
No comments:
Post a Comment