A Right to Bear Arms
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Craig Wagner claimed in a March 24 letter that the Second Amendment right to bear arms doesn't include handguns, because handguns are part of a "subset" of arms "that, as the term is used today, did not exist" when the amendment was adopted. Fair enough, although handguns are a whale of a subset.
Now let's apply Mr. Wagner's principle to a provision found in the amendment just prior to this one: Free speech. As we all know, one is free to state any position one desires on any subject one desires: political, religious, philosophical, whatever (unless you're on a college campus and express conservative views, in which case all bets are off). The Founders would have recognized my right to stand on the corner and express all manner of nasty and nice things about whatever struck my fancy, and to hand out printed material.
But that right also applies to radio, TV and the Internet. These media are all a subset of forums of speech. They, too, were unknown by the Founders. Are they to be places free from First Amendment rights? Of course not.
If citizens were allowed only the arms the Founders knew of, we'd see a lot of flintlock long guns around. But, then, I suspect Mr. Wagner would have some objection to that, too. Somehow, I sense he's just not a fan of guns. That's okay; the First Amendment still applies to him in full.
JACK WEBB
Springfield
