ShareThisIt isn't often that those of us struggling to be coherent in our chosen profession praise the work of our competitors, but the other day E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post made a suggestion that deserves passing -- on despite the fact it has little or no chance of ever being carried out.
With his tongue only half cheek, Dionne, one of the Post's longtime columnists and all-around good reporters, proposed that if Congress truly wanted to make certain the Second Amendment rights of Americans are protected at any cost, as seems the case, it would put its gun powder where its votes are and designate its own premises as a model in firearms accessibility.
"Isn't it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their (constitutional) rights . . . to carry their firearms into the nation's Capitol?" Dionne asked. He added that after studying the deep thoughts of those U.S. senators who "regularly express their undying loyalty" to the National Rifle Association, "I have decided they should practice what they preach."
Now, how could the NRA, which owns the House and Senate lock, stock and barrel, object to that proposition which opens all sorts of opportunities for those who have trouble traveling anywhere without the reassurance of at least a handgun? Under those circumstances, they would now be assured that they could visit the seat of government for and by the people without the fear of being assaulted in the hallways. But what about terrorists, you ask? No jihadist would dare start anything with 535 lawmakers packing heat.
As Dionne notes, these lawmakers are always spouting the NRA mantra that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and "that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence.''
"If they believe that why don't they live by it?" the columnist asked, expressing the theory that unrestricted gun access in Congress would help promote family values, safety for kids on an excursion and might even reduce the number of extramarital affairs. What philanderer would risk the prospect of an armed response?
Before you consider this outlandish, just consider that Congress agreed only a short time ago to permit guns in national parks and its pro-gun members have sought to allow Americans to be armed in taverns, churches and even colleges. The NRA's adherents argued that if the student body at Virginia Tech had been armed the crazy that shot and killed 32 fellow students would have been cut down at least before the carnage got too overwhelming.
Then just recently, Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the Wild West caucus, proposed an amendment that would have allowed those with concealed weapon permits to carry their guns across state lines even into those states that don't allow it. The amendment failed by only two votes, leading to speculation that it would be back sooner than later, especially since the NRA backs it wholeheartedly. Dionne suggests that under the circumstances, why shouldn't Thune be allowed to carry his own concealed weapon to the Senate floor.
The omnipresence of firepower on the Senate floor might even help decide the fate of Supreme Court nominations. The NRA has taken a stand against confirmation of Sonia Sototmayor, warning senators about the consequences of voting for someone with suspect pro-gun credentials. They see a potential balance shift in upholding unfettered firearm owning and trading. One more appointment to the high court like Sotomayor might offset the one-vote majority that said recently the founders surely meant that individual Americans had an inalienable right to posses firearms, presumably muskets and cap and ball pistols since that is all they had at the time.
So nothing could be more reassuring for national rights than a great debate punctuated by gunfire or at least the prospect of a shootout over any number of issues. As Dionne said it is time for Congress to put up or shut up and I, for one, second that stance.
(E-mail Dan K. Thomasson, former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service, at thomassondan(at)aol.com.)
COLUMN
Second vs. First Amendment
Although there is much to disagree with in this column and much to reply to, I will offer only one observation: applying your logic, Mr. Thomasson, the First Amendment protect only hand-operated presses using wooden block moveable type, "since that is all they had at the time." So the protection of free speech and press does not extend to computers, the internet, your high-speed, electronically-controlled printing presses, photocopies, radio, television, satellites, videotape - I could go on, but you get the idea - just like, as you apparently believe, the Second Amendment does not protect anything other than "muskets and cap and ball pistols since that is all they had at the time."
In reality, that is a disingenous argument, because the Bill of Rights of the Constitution does not purport to address or protect any particular technology, but instead protects fundamental rights based on foundational principles. The freedom of speech and of the press is not based only on the technology used to produce or convey it anymore than the freedom to bear "arms" is based on the specific firearms technology that existed at the time. If you truly believe that the Second Amendment can not protect the right to keep and bear modern repeating arms because "they could not have foreseen them," then, to be intellectually honest and consistent, you must admit that the government has the right to control, require registration or licensing of and even ban the private ownership or use of printers, photocopiers, printing presses, the internet, radios, television, etc., because the framers of the Constitution most certain and unquestionably could not possibly have even remotely conceived of such things.
By the way, the same questions can be raised regarding the Fourth Amendment. Could the framers have possibly foreseen the development of modern ease-dropping technology and infrared, heat-sensing video cameras? Does this mean that our homes and persons are not protected against government intrusion through use of such technologies as "unreasonable" searches? After, all they did not have those "at that time" either.
Second vs. First Amendment
In response to your column regarding carrying firearms in the U.S. Capitol, I will offer only one observation: applying your logic, Mr. Thomasson, the First Amendment protects only hand-operated presses using wooden block moveable type, "since that is all they had at the time." The protection of free speech and press afforded by the First Amendment would then not extend to computers, the internet, your high-speed, electronically-controlled printing presses, photocopies, radio, television, satellites, videotape - I could go on, but you get the idea - just like, as you apparently believe, the Second Amendment does not protect anything other than "muskets and cap and ball pistols since that is all they had at the time."
In reality, that is a disingenous argument, because the Bill of Rights does not purport to address or protect any particular technology, but instead protects fundamental rights based on foundational principles. The freedom of speech and of the press is not based only on the technology used to produce or convey it, anymore than the freedom to bear "arms" is based on the specific firearms technology that existed at the time. If you truly believe that the Second Amendment can not protect the right to keep and bear modern repeating arms because "they could not have foreseen them," then, to be intellectually honest and consistent, you must admit that the government has the right to control, require registration or licensing of and even ban the private ownership or use of printers, photocopiers, printing presses, the internet, radios, television, etc., because the framers of the Constitution most certainly could not possibly have even remotely conceived of such things.
By the way, the same questions can be raised regarding the Fourth Amendment. Could the framers have possibly foreseen the development of modern ease-dropping technology and infrared, heat-sensing video cameras? Does this mean that our homes and persons are not protected against government intrusion through use of such technologies as "unreasonable" searches? After, all they did not have those "at that time" either.