The NRA’s re­vi­sion­is­tic view of Amend­ment No. 2

Baltimore Sun - - FROM PAGE ONE - C. W. An­der­son, Pasadena

The re­cent ed­i­to­rial, “Ig­nor­ing the ob­vi­ous” (June 7), uses a phrase that dis­tracts from the ap­par­ent po­si­tion on the Sec­ond Amend­ment by the NRA specif­i­cally, and gen­er­ally the Repub­li­can Party. These or­ga­ni­za­tions are not “Sec­ond Amend­ment ab­so­lutists.” Nor do they fit the com­monly-used phrase, de­fend­ers of the Sec­ond Amend­ment. At best, they are Sec­ond Amend­ment re­vi­sion­ists.

I re­call that around the 1980s, Repub­li­cans openly started to ac­cli­mate the pub­lic in ac­cept­ing the phrase “well reg­u­lated” as mean­ing not well reg­u­lated. Over the years, this in­sin­u­a­tion of re­vised ter­mi­nol­ogy has made it nearly univer­sal that the open­ing phrases to the Sec­ond Amend­ment do not ex­ist. Repub­li­cans, with the help of the NRA, have ef­fec­tively muz­zled aware­ness of past and present knowl­edge through their fail­ure to lead dis­cus­sions on the ex­ten­sive his­tory of per­sonal own­er­ship and arms reg­u­la­tions. In the ef­fort to twist up the Sec­ond Amend­ment, Repub­li­cans have used a bizarre rea­son­ing to pre­clude fund­ing of stud­ies aimed at un­der­stand­ing the ef­fects of weapon use in so­ci­ety.

The long-term cam­paign to spread ig­no­rance re­sults in a pub­lic that has lit­tle his­tor­i­cal and cur­rent in­for­ma­tion to make in­formed de­ci­sions (Mel and Norma Gabler, the late text­book cen­sors, should be proud). This thwarts reach­ing agree­ment on any ac­cept­able thresh­old to per­sonal arms re­stric­tions. The NRA and Repub­li­cans are much closer to Sec­ond Amend­ment an­ar­chists.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.