Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, February 21, 1992 TAG: 9202210480
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: THOMAS E. LINK
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
SECOND AMENDMENT ESSENTIAL TO FIRST
IT IS IRONIC that on the page following Geoff Seamans' article advocating repeal of the Second Amendment (Feb. 16) was a review of a book about the Holocaust from the point of view of the executioners. It underscores the reason we have the Second Amendment.Perhaps Mr. Seamans has consummate faith in governments. Ben, Tom, Jim, George, John, Charles, Matt, Carter, Bob, Lyman, Sam, and a few of the good old boys who ran the democracy clique back in the early days had consummate incredulity about governments. They experienced dealing with tyrants up-close-and-personal.
They understood what was necessary to maintain freedom for the individual better than we. Long periods of peace and relative security have a way of obfuscating the truth about governments. Without restraints they are absolutely corrupt! Neither the government in D.C. nor the one in Richmond is to be trusted.
As for repeal of the Second Amendment, why not go ahead and repeal the First? Without the Second, the First has no teeth. So let's take a shot at revising the first article in the Bill of Rights. Let's adopt a constitutional amendment that goes something like this:
1. The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The establishment and practice of religion, content of speech and the publication by and establishment of any press or electronic medium, as well as the licensing of assemblies and authorization of petitions for redress of grievances shall be subject to such restrictions as the Congress of the United States may impose. Any state, territory or possession of the United States may impose additional restrictions within its borders.
Many German people voluntarily gave the government of Adolf Hitler an inventory of their firearms. Later they gave up their actual firearms.
Finally, they had no defense against the SS. Unacceptable books were burned. Non-conforming journalists were rounded up and sent to their deaths. The lingering stench and horrifying photographs and newsreels of the death camps bear testimony to the evil that even the "super race" could impose on its fellow citizens.
We don't need to look beyond 18 months back and an ocean away to recall the evil of which governments are capable. Will we that easily forget the torture suffered by the people of Kuwait? And just a few months before that, Beijing! Why do we need a strong Bill of Rights?
It seems to me that contemporary journalists, in general, are so beguiled by government and institutions that they think it only necessary to rewrite government or business press releases with a few minor changes. Modern journalists seem to see no reason to defend their right to a free press by constant vigilance. I would prefer a press that saw itself as the perennial adversary of the government in power, no matter who or what party controlled it.
The First and Second Amendments are now and always have been under immutable attack. It is essential that we the people recognize that the Bill of Rights, as presently constituted, in its entirety, is fundamental to individual liberty, and that a liberal interpretation of any part dilutes the other parts and thus the whole.
No other document in the history of mankind has served individual liberty and freedom as well as the Bill of Rights. Take away the right to bear arms, and you take away the right to free speech and press.
Thomas E. Link is a free-lance writer who lives in Roanoke.