Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer-Do Americans Have the Right to Bear WMD?
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:07:29 -0500 (EST)
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Do  Americans Have the Right to Bear Weapons of Mass  Destruction? 

The massacre and  assassination attempt in Tucson have reignited the 
ongoing battle over  what limitations should be placed on our rights to bear arms. 
Let’s assume for a  moment – though there are many Constitutional scholars 
who disagree -- that the  majority of the Supreme Court is correct in its 
view that the Constitution does  in fact confer on Americans a right to bear 
arms that is similar in scope to our  right to free speech and assembly. 
What does it actually mean, that we have a  right to bear arms?      
The Second Amendment  reads: 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. 
What exactly are  “arms”?  Do Americans have the right  to bear atom 
bombs?  How about  biological or chemical weapons?    
For the vast majority  of Americans, the proposition that we have the right 
to bear our own nuclear,  biological or chemical weapons is preposterous. 
But what about stinger missiles  that can down commercial aircraft – or 
bazookas?  They are all arms.  
Strict  constructionists of the Constitution would want to look back at 
original  intent.  So let’s think for a moment  what the framers of the 
Constitution meant by “arms.”   
At the time the  Constitution was written in the late 18th century, “arms” 
included  weapons that had a fairly limited degree of destructive power.  
To Thomas Jefferson or Alexander  Hamilton, the term “arms” referred to 
clubs, swords, single shot cannons, single  shot muskets and pistols.  Weapons  
that allowed people to rapidly fire many bullets had not been invented. 
There  were no assault rifles, machine guns or semi-automatics.  While there 
were a few double barreled  rifles as early as the seventeenth century, the 
double barreled rifle would not  be perfected until the late 1800’s.  Samuel 
Colt would not invent the revolver – the six-shooter – until 1836.  
To the framers, the  term “arms” referred mainly to single shot muskets 
and pistols.  
But beyond the  question of what the Constitution means by the “right to 
bear arms,” we must  also remember that no right is absolute.  Each person’s 
rights are constrained by the extent to which they impinge  on another person
’s rights.  
If you live by  yourself on an island, you have an absolute right to do 
whatever you want.  There’s no one else around with whom your rights can 
conflict.  But as soon as you join a society of  other people, an individual’s 
personal rights are limited by the degree to which  they affect the rights of 
others.  Legislative bodies and courts were set up precisely to adjudicate 
the  conflicts between these rights. 
There is general  agreement that the right to free speech does not give 
individuals the right to  falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater, because 
that conflicts with everyone  else’s right to avoid being killed or injured by 
the ensuing panic.   
The right to free  speech doesn’t allow individuals to lie under oath to a 
court, because that  would conflict with the rights of others to a fair 
trial.        
Like any other  right, the right to bear arms is limited by the rights of 
other Americans not to  be killed or injured.  So – given  the Supreme Court’
s interpretation of the Second Amendment – the question is not  whether 
Americans have the right to bear arms, but rather how that right should  be 
limited because it conflicts with other rights.  
I believe the  answer to that question is clear.  The mounting volume of 
gun deaths and injuries, the easy access that  criminals and terrorists have 
to what amounts to weapons of mass destruction,  require substantial 
limitations on the ability of individuals to use, carry and  obtain guns.  That need 
is enhanced  by the technological advances that have been made in weapons 
technology in the  years since 1789. 
Our laws  currently ban guns made of plastic, because they cannot be 
identified by metal  detectors. 
There are very  few Americans who would support repealing our current laws 
banning guns on  commercial aircraft.  
For many years  we have banned personal possession of large caliber machine 
guns – including  those that could bring down airplanes.  
In 1994,  Congress and the President passed a bi-partisan assault weapons 
ban that  outlawed private possession or sale of specific types of fully and  
semi-automatic weapons whose principle uses are to kill people in war, or 
by  police forces. That bill also banned the possession and sale of 
high-volume  magazines of the sort that allowed the Jared Lee Loughner, the accused 
Tucson killer, to fire  thirty-one shots in rapid succession before stopping 
to reload.  That bill sunset in 2004, and the  Republican Congress and Bush 
Administration refused to extend its  provisions.   
Had it still been in effect it  would have been likely that Loughner – who 
bought the magazines legally– would  have had to reload after firing off 
only 10 rounds, which was the maximum  magazine capacity under the assault 
weapons ban.  Since nineteen people were killed or  injured, that would have 
preventing the death or injury of at least another nine  human beings. 
When the ban  expired, assault weapons once again began to flood our 
streets – and – according  to the Mexican government – have played a major role 
in the drug violence that  has torn apart the border region.      Regardless 
of  the increasing gun carnage, many Republicans are pushing to expand the 
right to  carry weapons of all sorts.  They  oppose reinstituting the assault 
weapons ban and even want to allow people to  carry guns into schools, 
churches, restaurants and bars. 
Arizona recently  eliminated the requirement that individuals get permits 
to carry concealed  weapons. 
Their argument is that  if more people carried guns, there would be people 
around with weapons to stop  other people who would use their guns against 
their fellow citizens. It’s the  “quick draw” argument.  I’m not sure  many 
people would go for that argument in a plane, or a crowed restaurant, or in 
 a bar where most of the customers have thrown back a few drinks – 
particularly  if the whole crowd were carrying Glocks with the ability to squeeze 
off 31  rounds each in a matter of seconds. Frankly, it’s ridiculous. 
Let’s see how many of  the Republicans in Congress who want to allow 
everyone to pack assault weapons  feel about eliminating the ban on weapons in the 
Capitol.  Why not just let any old American (or  other visitor) wander the 
halls with Uzi’s while we’re at it? 
You hear, “guns don’t  kill people, people kill people.”  Sure.  But if 
Loughner had a  knife or a club instead of a semi-automatic Glock with 
extended magazine, lots  of people would be alive today. 
We all agree that  someone like Loughner – or any other citizen -- should 
not be permitted to  possess a nuclear weapon or some other weapon of mass 
destruction.  Why should he be permitted to carry  semi-automatic Glock with 
extended magazine?  It is also a weapon of mass destruction.  Its only 
purpose is to kill or injure large numbers of people.  It can’t kill hundreds of 
thousands, but  we know empirically that within a few seconds it can kill and 
injure  nineteen. 
The argument  that our society would be safer if we had even more guns – 
and especially  high-powered guns – is simply absurd.  Hopefully the shock of 
the appalling  massacre in Tucson will prompt us to snap out of our  
NRA-induced stupor and pass restrictions on weapons that effectively balance the  
right to bear arms with our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of  
happiness. 
Robert Creamer is a long-time  political organizer and strategist, and 
author of the book:  Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can  Win, available on 
_Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-1)  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.