|
Home
Up
| |
WHAT IF THE FIRST AMENDMENT READ LIKE THE SECOND?
If the beginning of the First Amendment had been composed in
the manner of the Second it might look something like this: A well informed
electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and read publications shall not be infringed.
There’s much more to that one, of course, but that much
will suffice for our purposes. What we have there seems pretty straightforward
on its surface. Nothing therein seems to imply any possible restriction against
the use of books which might contain large amounts of information. Even large
capacity multi-volume encyclopedias seem devoid of restriction. Infringement (or
interference) of the use of high speed informational material, such as magazines
and newspapers is likewise not to be allowed. Nothing is said of large books
that must rest upon a table or pedestal to be read, nor of small books that may
be carried conveniently in a pocket or purse.
Is there anything in this that would lead one to believe
that, since the electorate is to be informed, if one were not registered to
vote, or simply chose not to do so that such individual would in any way be
restricted from owning books or reading them? A Liberal might respond that these
are mere words, not weapons, as are addressed in the Second Amendment. Words do
no harm, but weapons may. However, words are expressions of ideas. Have we not
heard the dicta: “There is nothing so dangerous as an idea whose time has
come,” or “The pen is mightier than the sword?”
As a matter of basic grammar, the militia clause in Article
Two of the Bill of Rights is not a dependent clause. The right of the people
expressed therein is in no way conditioned upon membership in a militia. It
merely provides an example to demonstrate a justification of the right
enumerated.
Throughout the Constitution one finds that states and
government entities have restrictions and/or obligations. Neither is said,
anywhere in the document, to have rights of any sort.. Only people are described
as having rights. Moreover, the Constitution in no way grants any of those
rights, it merely acknowledges their existence as derived of the Creator and not
conditioned upon that document for their being. Ergo, the right to keep and bear
arms is not conditioned upon any grant of favor by government. On the contrary,
it is the place of government to guarantee that there be no interference with
that right.
It would seem a stretch to imagine that anyone with a basic
education in the history of the nation’s founding, or who has read the
opinions and declarations of the founders themselves, might imagine that Article
Two of the Bill of Rights refers to a so-called collective right of the states
to maintain militias, rather than a personal right of individuals. There are
only three possible explanations for such a position: Ignorance, stupidity or
subversion.
Copyright 2005 by Robert H. O'Meara
May be copied with attribution only.
|
