More on Commas and Gun Control
As a follow-up to my previous post on the controversy engendered by the promiscuous use of commas in the Second Amendment, here is a brief recent commentary by Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker.
[Hat tip to Eric Saidel.]
Comments
Hertzberg just parrots two standard, and manifestly incorrect, arguments about the second amendment that always come up.
The first is that “I’m certain that the Framers would recognize that, after two hundred and thirty years, times have changed” ergo we can ignore the second amendment. Hertzberg ignores the fact that “the times have changed” argument can be used to invalidate everything in the constitution. When Hertzberg writes a column saying “the framers never envisioned terrorism so the Bush administration is fully justified in ignoring the constitution to fight terrorism,” he’ll be able to use this argument against gun ownership without hypocrisy but not before.
The other is the strawman argument that guns are protected for militias and for hunting. Jefferson said “No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
If Hertzberg doesn’t like that, he can amend the constitution to change it.
Posted by: Robert L. | December 20, 2007 01:45 PM