There are few guarantees afforded by the Constitution as resolute as the freedom of speech. It has grown to such status that we take it for granted, and for the most part, we exercise it with discretion and respect. There are certainly exceptions of course, both to our right to exercise free speech, and to our dignified use of it.
Doc Underwood sometimes referred to the practice of yelling 'Fire, Fire' in a crowded theater as unacceptable use of this ability. The potential for such a statement (if less than genuine) to incite a panic in which some may be injured far outweighs the comedic value, and represents reckless disregard for safety. Most municipalities would frown on this as a misdemeanor at best.
However, in a democratic republic such as ours, speech, even unpopular speech, is necessary. Political, moral, and ethical debates couldn't occur without dissenting opinions. But the city of Elmhurst, Illinois is trying to legislate that right out of existence. When I first heard of this, I was amused, but when I heard the reasoning, I became dismayed. Now I'm concerned.
The proposition brought by the city government would, if passed, add the rolling of one's eyes to a classification of misdemeanors called 'disorderly conduct', punishable by fines and possible arrest. The impetus for this ordinance stems from a woman who rolled here eyes and sighed during a statement from one of the city officials. She was ejected from the meeting.
I agree that rolling your eyes at someone can be frustrating, even hurtful. But we're all grownups here. Facial expression itself is part of speech, as is wild gesturing of hands, and other body language. It's communication in its most reduced form, and in my humble opinion still a form of speech. I realized in the first grade, sitting on the assembly room floor (which was also the gym and cafeteria) of Marion Elementary School, that the kid making faces at me was no less dignified than an emotional response to something childish.
However, we're not robots. A roll of the eyes is reasonable, if not mandatory, when public officials fail to uphold the interests of the People. The woman whose actions have prompted this suggestion is known for outbursts. Her restraint is less than admirable, as reported by The Chicago Tribune. And if she is in fact that disruptive, barring her from future city business is far preferable to attempting legislation of natural human expression.
Unfortunately, I foresee this as an infraction, however minor, of free speech. And if pursued, I believe it could lead to larger restrictions on public involvement in public affairs. On the heels of such a decision, impassioned statements that rile public opinion may be punishable, followed by a ban on public statements altogether.
We cannot be restrained from showing our disapproval. It's a requirement of a Republic.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Sovereignty and its Defense
America has become a nation divided. For every political agenda, there are two distinct viewpoints, and then one, less clear, that rests somewhere between them. Whether the issue is abortion, immigration, or economics, the divisions run deep and are inhabited by people with every shade of enthusiasm from polite indifference to fundamentalist rage towards other viewpoints. Rarely do two people who share a philosophy one subject invariably come down on the same side of the fence on all the others. Quite literally, one can have a finger in every pie on the political picnic table and never see the same face twice.
There are few issues about which I am so impassioned as the 2nd Amendment. And as the Supreme Court hands down decisions that leave the exercise of what we have traditionally interpreted as the 'right to bear arms' in the hands of individuals, the nation has become more divided than ever. Conservative ideals have been upheld in these recent decisions, much to the dismay of the political Left. Many liberally minded individuals have shouted with very loud voices that we should fight for stronger gun control, while their counterparts have insisted that two hands on the pistol is all the gun control that is required.
Fanaticism, in all its forms, is selective reasoning, and often the offspring of false syllogism. While I respect that opinions are the exclusive domain of those who bear them, I must decline to agree wholly with either side of the debate. One cannot be an extremist of any kind without also being biased, and therefore blind to some degree of truth. Whether it's being dismissive of the importance of established fact, or willful ignorance in defense of one's dogma, absolute devotion to one side of any issue is a choice to be blind.
I am of the firm belief that people are not complete idiots. For whatever devotion they ascribe to a topic, they have some basis for their allegiance. To dismiss it out of hand simply because they disagree with us is to reduce them to a mindless mob. I will at least hear one's reasons before I judge them valid, and I will never dismiss a well reasoned perspective, even if I disagree.
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is a very simple looking statement, which unfortunately was the dumping ground of at least three concepts that the founding fathers wanted to address. It is overly ambitious, and overly simplified for its reach. Two sentences would have been better. In establishing one right, of the people to keep and bear Arms, the necessity of the a well regulated Militia is declared. A subject of little debate, the ability to repel despotic government is protected by this Amendment. The explicit authority to form an armed resistance is granted to the People.
Where people seem to disagree is whether this authority is granted at the individual level, or at the state level. The Supreme Court has declared in District of Columbia v. Heller that it is an individual right that cannot be preempted by the Federal Government, even in Federal Enclaves such as Washington DC. This position was recently affirmed in McDonald v. Chicago, where the Supreme Court again ruled that the city could not deny gun ownership for the purpose of self defense.
Regardless of philosophical reasoning, what is clear is that the highest court in the land has upheld the individual right to bring weapons to bear. Illustrated by this ruling, the exclusive right of the people to fight tyranny by any means necessary is protected. Primarily, people interpret this to mean that we can fight off oppressive government. And considering that the framers of the Constitution committed high treason in putting pen to paper for the very purpose of opposing tyrannical rule, this interpretation is implicitly correct.
Also implicit in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights is the sovereignty of self. And if one agrees that the 2nd Amendment was drafted to protect one from uncontested tyranny, one must also agree that a tyrant need not be a ruler, or even a governmental body. As defined by Merriam-Webster, a tyrant only need be a usurper of sovereignty to qualify for the title, and is thus inclusive of home invaders, rapists, thieves, and murderers.
If as individuals we claim sovereignty over our faith, property, finances, and bodies, then we also accept that to defend or acquiesce that claim is our exclusive right. And in doing so, to bear arms in defense of that which we will not freely surrender is also our exclusive right. For no reason shall the ability to defend or dispense that which is ours, including the government, at our discretion, be infringed.
Because tyranny may be executed at the personal level, the ability to defend against it at the personal level must be protected. Currently, the city of Chicago, Illinois would contest that legislation that only the truly law abiding will heed is the way to reduce gun violence. And while I agree that gun violence is abhorrent, a government cannot legislate weapons out of the hands of criminals. They may only legislatively incriminate previously law abiding people by making the guns which they refuse to surrender illegal to own.
If there is anything for which guns do carry the full responsibility, it's making violence impersonal. Murder may be committed at a distance with no more tactile feedback that the recoil of a spent round. Looking a victim in the eye while they are put to death is a sensation that only the truly insane seek.
Violence can never be the sole domain of the weapon. It is, and always has been, a reflection of the values and ethics of a society. Guns owned and kept for the common defense can be used against oppression in all its forms. They must be, if for no other reason than those who come to do you harm, whether they be elected officials or common thugs (insert snicker here) will come appropriately armed to coerce your cooperation. And though not spelled out in the 2nd Amendment, the larger body of America's constitution grants you Liberty, and you are under no obligation to surrender it without the most vigorous fight you can muster.
There are few issues about which I am so impassioned as the 2nd Amendment. And as the Supreme Court hands down decisions that leave the exercise of what we have traditionally interpreted as the 'right to bear arms' in the hands of individuals, the nation has become more divided than ever. Conservative ideals have been upheld in these recent decisions, much to the dismay of the political Left. Many liberally minded individuals have shouted with very loud voices that we should fight for stronger gun control, while their counterparts have insisted that two hands on the pistol is all the gun control that is required.
Fanaticism, in all its forms, is selective reasoning, and often the offspring of false syllogism. While I respect that opinions are the exclusive domain of those who bear them, I must decline to agree wholly with either side of the debate. One cannot be an extremist of any kind without also being biased, and therefore blind to some degree of truth. Whether it's being dismissive of the importance of established fact, or willful ignorance in defense of one's dogma, absolute devotion to one side of any issue is a choice to be blind.
I am of the firm belief that people are not complete idiots. For whatever devotion they ascribe to a topic, they have some basis for their allegiance. To dismiss it out of hand simply because they disagree with us is to reduce them to a mindless mob. I will at least hear one's reasons before I judge them valid, and I will never dismiss a well reasoned perspective, even if I disagree.
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is a very simple looking statement, which unfortunately was the dumping ground of at least three concepts that the founding fathers wanted to address. It is overly ambitious, and overly simplified for its reach. Two sentences would have been better. In establishing one right, of the people to keep and bear Arms, the necessity of the a well regulated Militia is declared. A subject of little debate, the ability to repel despotic government is protected by this Amendment. The explicit authority to form an armed resistance is granted to the People.
Where people seem to disagree is whether this authority is granted at the individual level, or at the state level. The Supreme Court has declared in District of Columbia v. Heller that it is an individual right that cannot be preempted by the Federal Government, even in Federal Enclaves such as Washington DC. This position was recently affirmed in McDonald v. Chicago, where the Supreme Court again ruled that the city could not deny gun ownership for the purpose of self defense.
Regardless of philosophical reasoning, what is clear is that the highest court in the land has upheld the individual right to bring weapons to bear. Illustrated by this ruling, the exclusive right of the people to fight tyranny by any means necessary is protected. Primarily, people interpret this to mean that we can fight off oppressive government. And considering that the framers of the Constitution committed high treason in putting pen to paper for the very purpose of opposing tyrannical rule, this interpretation is implicitly correct.
Also implicit in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights is the sovereignty of self. And if one agrees that the 2nd Amendment was drafted to protect one from uncontested tyranny, one must also agree that a tyrant need not be a ruler, or even a governmental body. As defined by Merriam-Webster, a tyrant only need be a usurper of sovereignty to qualify for the title, and is thus inclusive of home invaders, rapists, thieves, and murderers.
If as individuals we claim sovereignty over our faith, property, finances, and bodies, then we also accept that to defend or acquiesce that claim is our exclusive right. And in doing so, to bear arms in defense of that which we will not freely surrender is also our exclusive right. For no reason shall the ability to defend or dispense that which is ours, including the government, at our discretion, be infringed.
Because tyranny may be executed at the personal level, the ability to defend against it at the personal level must be protected. Currently, the city of Chicago, Illinois would contest that legislation that only the truly law abiding will heed is the way to reduce gun violence. And while I agree that gun violence is abhorrent, a government cannot legislate weapons out of the hands of criminals. They may only legislatively incriminate previously law abiding people by making the guns which they refuse to surrender illegal to own.
If there is anything for which guns do carry the full responsibility, it's making violence impersonal. Murder may be committed at a distance with no more tactile feedback that the recoil of a spent round. Looking a victim in the eye while they are put to death is a sensation that only the truly insane seek.
Violence can never be the sole domain of the weapon. It is, and always has been, a reflection of the values and ethics of a society. Guns owned and kept for the common defense can be used against oppression in all its forms. They must be, if for no other reason than those who come to do you harm, whether they be elected officials or common thugs (insert snicker here) will come appropriately armed to coerce your cooperation. And though not spelled out in the 2nd Amendment, the larger body of America's constitution grants you Liberty, and you are under no obligation to surrender it without the most vigorous fight you can muster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)