FIRST AMENDMENT DOOMED WITHOUT SECOND

(First published in a slightly different version as a paid column in The Rawlins Daily Times, P.O. Box 370, Rawlins WY 82301-0370, Charles Bowlus, Managing Editor, 307-324-3411.)

When the liberal media loses the Right to decide whether or not to print this or anything else, who will be there to care or to do anything about it?

Anytime any one Right is placed above another, or "modernized" by interpretation, all Rights are made less absolute.

Democracy is a very difficult form of government to sustain. Our Constitution is a very eloquent and elegant set of rules by which we maintain a delicate balance between the Rights of the individual and the Rights of the State.

Our forefathers deliberately and wisely leaned heavily toward the side of the individual. These were men to whom freedom was a new and heady dream just being realized.

These men intended that no-one, ever, would place them or their descendants under any rule but the Rule of Law. The Rights they felt so strongly about were codified into the Constitution and Amendments. It seems plain that these Rights were meant to be left inviolate.

Provision was made for adding and repealing Amendments; there is no provision for repealing Rights. As individuals, only certain classes of criminals may have their rights taken away. However, every abridgement by law, interpretation, administrative ru le, or executive order has the effect of a partial repeal.

This weakening of Rights was not intended by the writers of the Constitution and its Amendments. This trend toward more Rights for the State and fewer Rights for the individual must not be allowed to continue.

When this Nation was formed, it was then, as now, a Nation under siege from within as well as without. We are also under siege in ways the early lawmakers could not have imagined, but the rules they made then concerning Rights of the people still work a s well as ever.

Suppose, just suppose, it was decided by those who would decide such things, that only the news fit to print would be printed? Of course, such an abridgement of the First Amendment would mean a successful attack against the media and all its might--or wo uld it?

Is it not likely that some "liberal" or "conservative" media might see a suppression of certain "dangerous" information or ideas as a good thing? After all, just as some firearms are said to have no legitimate "sporting purpose," many publications, songs , movies, etc., have been deemed without social value.

To set the record straight, the First Amendment doesn't say a single word about the "social value" of publications, or any product of any media, any zany religion you could imagine, or any off-the-wall gathering of people you may choose to attend. The S econd Amendment also doesn't say a single word about "sporting purposes."

The word used is "arms"; not a word about sport hunting or recreational uses of firearms. "Arms" means "weapons"; if it had been intended otherwise, the Second Amendment might have read: "Sport shooting being recognized as important recreation, the peop le shall be permitted to own suitable sporting firearms, subject to local ordinance and regulation."

Imagine such a perversion of the First Amendment. And, there are those who would control what is published subject to their "reasonable" censorship.

The Supreme Court--the last resort except force of arms--just might be able or willing to prevent a revision or misinterpretation of the First Amendment. Or would it come down to defending Freedom of the Press with human lives? How many of those in the liberal media would have the courage to defend this Right with force of arms? How many would simply shutup or flee into exile?

What if the attack came from a network of terrorists in a concerted effort to control what people were told? That would result in a great clamor and cry for protection. But who would defend the liberal media? Would the police and military be able or wil ling to drop everything else and rush to their aid? More likely they would have to mostly defend themselves.

Some larger media would be able to hire men and women able to protect First Amendment Rights. The major problem would be a matter of finding enough people with the heart to fight, kill, or die in defense of what is right. The ranks of those who didn't mind getting their hands dirty, and were adequately trained, would soon be exhausted.

If current trends toward gun control--a concerted attack on the Second Amendment--continue, the liberal media and those who think gun control is a good idea will learn why it was intended that we always have the Right to "Keep and Bear Arms."

Without the Second Amendment the rest of the words of the Constitution and the Amendments are just dreams. It took force of arms to win our freedom and it will take force of arms to keep it. At a time when our immediate enemies--Crime, Drugs, Corrupti on--are rampant at every level, it just doesn't make sense to move toward disarming the general population.

Oh, Ted Kennedy will still have his bodyguards. However, he and the rest of us would be solely at the mercy of those who were still armed. Our basic Right of self-defense would be a sad joke on those who let things come to this pass.

Politicians and bureaucrats who try to disarm the population, historically have had good reasons for doing so--invariably to protect their own interests or philosophy.

I don't personally believe there is any great conspiracy; I believe, though it galls me, that most of our lawmakers are doing what they think is right.

Believing you are right is not necessarily the same thing as being right. I believe that we are being weakened as a nation anytime the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is abridged. When the Right to self-defense is made to seem shameful or even criminal, we are being made weaker in our will to resist. A nation of unarmed people will not long survive as a nation of free people. Men and women with the will to fight, but without the means, don't long survive lightly-armed infantry or even rabble.

The founders of this Nation did not know where future attacks on the Nation or the Rights of its citizens would strike. They also didn't know where the attacks would originate. They did know how to keep a Nation of Free men forever Free. This was thei r sole objective and they did an admirable job.

They are long dead: We must now do the job ourselves.

Freedom cannot survive without arms in the hands of the citizens, anymore than it can survive without a Free Press. It seems to me that a segment of our society that makes so much fuss about First Amendment Rights would be well advised to take a long lo ok ahead and decide just who will protect those Rights if they are successful in their misguided efforts to undermine the Second Amendment.

A Postscript:

In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the rabid statements made by those self-styled "super patriots" gave me and a lot of other people another reason to oppose efforts toward disarming of the general populace. The thought occured to me that rat her than have to defend myself against a tyrannical government as seen from the militia point of view, I might find it necessary to defend myself and my country against those who would claim to be defenders of my freedom--those who in reality were pursuin g their own agenda of tyranny.

Copyright ©1994 1995 David F. Norman