September 11 and the 2nd Amendment 

2007-09-09
By

“What opponents of the second amendment have never understood is that the prime benefit of the right to bear arms is now and always has been reaped without a shot being fired. The main benefit does not lie in the occasional person who shoots an attacker in self-defense. It doesn’t lie in the many attacks that are stopped by warning shots or the brandishing of a weapon. The main value of the second amendment is that anybody who considers attacking a home, a business, or a community, has to fear one thing above all–the people there may be armed.

“And in the post-September 11 era it is again true: every sham ‘patriot’ who seeks to vent his frustration on the Muslim owner of the local market, the Muslim community a few miles away, or the Muslim mosque across town, has to keep one thing in mind above all–his intended victims may be armed.”

I’ve always believed that one of the great values of the 2nd Amendment is that it provides embattled minorities the chance for armed self-defense. After the September 11 terrorist actions, there were many violent attacks/hate crimes against Arab-Americans, and I think it was an excellent example of why the 2nd Amendment is needed, despite the problems associated with it. (I support the 2nd Amendment, though, unlike many of its supporters, I do acknowledge that it has a significant downside).

A newspaper column I wrote on the issue shortly after September 11 is below. On a related note, see my blog post I Don’t Think It’s a Hate Crime, but It’s Great Seeing an Arab Storeowner Defend Himself

Attacks on American Muslims Reaffirm Wisdom of 2nd Amendment
By Glenn Sacks

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers’ decision to include the right to bear arms in our constitution has been demonstrated again in the wake of last week’s terrorist attack. This nation’s founders saw the second amendment as a way for the common people to resist a tyrannical government and also as a way for besieged ethnic or religious minorities to defend themselves.

At the moment, the principal beneficiaries of the right to bear arms are American Muslims, who have come under attack by those who somehow hold them responsible for last week’s horrific events. Over the past week Muslims have been the victims of dozens of despicable hate-crimes. Gas station attendants have been shot at, punched, and attacked with machetes. Mosques, temples, and Islamic centers have been fired upon, vandalized, firebombed, and attacked with Molotov cocktails. Businesses have been burned down and fire-bombed. Muslim girls have been beaten, a Pakistani woman was almost run over by a car, and a Sudanese man was attacked with a knife. At least two victims of these hate-crimes are dead. Muslim-owned businesses have closed and many parents have held their children out of school because they fear harassment and violence. Small groups of Muslims in isolated, rural areas have been threatened and fear assaults upon their communities.

There are many instances in American history of besieged ethnic or religious groups successfully using the second amendment right of armed self-defense. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, for example, armed Korean merchants and residents brandished weapons to defend their homes and businesses from the angry mobs who had specifically targeted them.

In the late 1950s, Civil Rights leader Robert F. Williams led the black community of Monroe, North Carolina in its struggle to defend itself against the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups. Inspired by armed Native Americans who had recently repelled a white supremacist attack on their reservation, Williams organized armed self-defense patrols which successfully defended the black community against marauding racist vigilantes. (more…)

Alicia M. Crowe’s Real Dads Stand Up!
Alicia M. Crowe’s new book Real Dads Stand Up! explains what every single father should know about child support, rights and custody. www.realdadsstandup.com
42 views

  • Robert Stevens

    Anyone who studies or even knows anything about the constitution and the 2nd amanedment knows this. The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the constitution for a very specific reason. That reason is not stated, but is so strongly implied and there is no mistaking the intent. Simply, if the government gets tyrannical and out of control the people will have the means to overthrow it.
    Self defence from criminals and hunting for food do figure into this, but the main purpose is to give people the power to make government obey the limits the constitution imposes. Nothing stops tyrannical behavior faster than an armed people who won’t stand for it.
    As far as September 11 figures into this, well. that will take some explaination.
    As I said if you studied the constitution you will already know that our government does not operate under that constitution anymore. They operate under a system called Admiralty/equity this is why we have a ” legal system” not the ” system of law” we started with. The people who run the government are power mad and they want more and more power. They know from history that armed people won’t just sit there and let them take more and more power. They use events like 9-11 to scare people into giving up their rights, ie the right to own and bear arms.
    You see the people who have hijacked our government want total control and people like me who would take up arms and stop them represent a threat. They know that if I stand up and they get whipped, other people will find their guts , than there are of them. And when they do lose, they won’t get petted on the head, they will stand trial for high treason. And you know what the penalty is for that!

  • mruffolo

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” George Washington

    http://thinkexist.com/quotation/firearms_are_second_only_to_the_constitution_in/327582.html

  • bolwriter

    In case anyone would want to actually read the 2nd Amendment, or better a few of the SC cases interpreting same, you’ll learn that it confers NO individual right to keep or bear arms. The right is collective, not individual. And if you’ll think further, you’ll figure out that’s a good thing. Because if the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to possess a gun, it would equally confer an individual right to possess a nuclear bomb, stinger missile, cluster bomb, etc. Some may think that’s fine, but the sane among us see the problems.

  • JohnG

    The right is collective, not individual. Bolwriter

    Yes, a collective right, as is free speech. By your arguement, there is no individual right to freedom of speech, nor of peaceful assembly, nor to petition the government for redress of grievances.

    Maybe you should read the constitution again yourself.

  • bolwriter

    No, JohnG, this is not my argument it is the Supreme Court’s argument, made consistently throughout the history of the amendment. First Amendment freedoms are indeed individual rights as the SC has also ruled. Again, if the 2nd AMendment conferred an individual right to own a gun, it would also confer an individual right to own nuclear weapons. It says “arms” not “guns.”

  • tonysprout

    “(I support the 2nd Amendment, though, unlike many of its supporters, I do acknowledge that it has a significant downside).”

    There is a downside to many Rights. Freedom of the press is one I can think of, for not only is the press another watchgroup of gov’t tyranny, the press also aids in that tyranny as we in the men’s movement have seen. More times than I can count the press has regurgitated feminist dogma, lies and proven lies. They also lie by ommission of facts or complete stories as in the F4J takeover of the Lincoln memorial. There should be a way to fine the press financially if they don’t issue retractions.

    As for the 2nd being individual or collective; the Framers knew the difference between Fed, State, and the People. If the Framers had meant for the right to be collective they would have said State where they actually said People.

    Mr. bolwriter, if you know so much about the SCOTUS, you would also know that the power for SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of ANY law is not granted by the Constitution. Instead that power was usurped by SCOTUS in Marbury v Madison in 1803.

  • FilthyMcNasty

    “In case anyone would want to actually read the 2nd Amendment,”

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Note: Not the “…right of the people in the militia…” Not “the right of the militia members…”

    It is the SAME “people” affirmed in the 1st, 4th, 9th, & 10th Amendment.

    “….or better a few of the SC cases interpreting same, ”

    And which cases are you referring to specifically???

    “you’ll learn that it confers NO individual right to keep or bear arms.”

    You’re right, the Bill Of Rights does not confer rights, it affirms pre existing rights. In addition, why would the founding fathers include one “collective” right amongst individual ones??

    “The right is collective, not individual.”

    Let’s see about that…. To wit:

    —————————————————————————–
    Alan Dershowitz said, “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”

    Harvard Constitutional Law professor Laurence Tribe writes that the Second Amendment is subject to “reasonable regulation,” but calls gun control extremists wrong when they say the Second Amendment restricts the right to “state militias” like the National Guard. Tribe said, “The Fourteenth Amendment, which makes parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, reflected a broad agreement that bearing arms was a ‘privilege’ of each citizen.”

    Some believe that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right — as part of a state militia — rather than an individual right to keep and bear arms. The film notes that the Founding Fathers clearly intended the Second Amendment to serve as a bulwark against possible tyranny by government. Why would the Founding Fathers limit the right to “keep and bear arms” to a government militia if threatened with tyranny by government?

    Many Founding Fathers wrote extensively on the subject. Thomas Jefferson said, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” George Washington stated, “A free people ought to be armed.”

    Former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey agrees. In 1959, he said, “The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

    ————————————————————————————-

    “And if you’ll think further, you’ll figure out that’s a good thing. Because if the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to possess a gun, it would equally confer an individual right to possess a nuclear bomb, stinger missile, cluster bomb, etc. Some may think that’s fine, but the sane among us see the problems.”

    Insanity is believing that the founding fathers ever wanted a standing army to have an upper hand on the citizenry.

  • FilthyMcNasty

    “No, JohnG, this is not my argument it is the Supreme Court’s argument, made consistently throughout the history of the amendment.”

    And yet you haven’t cited one case.

    “Again, if the 2nd AMendment conferred an individual right to own a gun, it would also confer an individual right to own nuclear weapons. It says “arms” not “guns.”

    Well, duh…guns ARE arms. Do yourself a favor, read the Federalist Papers. Read the writings of the founding fathers at the time of the revolution.
    If you don’t think “arms” refers to “guns”, what were the citizens supoosed to bring with them when they formed the various militias.
    Why would would the founding fathers mention the need for “taking up arms” against an oppresive government??






Search