EDMUND BURKEMy Open Letter to the Vice President (see the post immediately below) generated mail, some of it quite heated. I’ve been called a ""cretin"" and someone suffering from ""pointy headed brainlessness,"" among other things. I’m not going to answer all of the mail, but I respond here to some commonly-made themes.
From the mailbag: “In light of your own statement, is it fair for one to conclude you are simply using dead children as a soap box upon which to advance an agenda that predated the incident rather than addressing the problem the incident brought to light? If it is not, by all means enlighten me professor. This appears to be nothing less than rank opportunism using the most vile of tactics. Am I missing an alternative explanation?”
My response: When horrific events happen, Americans naturally and sensibly consider action to avoid or reduce repeats. After 9/11, was it “rank opportunism” for Americans to propose ways to avoid or reduce future hijackings of aircraft? Did that dishonor the victims? Following a hurricane that has taken lives, is it “vile opportunism” for Americans to talk about better disaster planning? As for my “agenda,” yes I think you are missing the obvious explanation. My interest is simply to make America safer, nothing more. I have no personal interest in the issue; that is, I have no financial interest in the issue and am not employed by or receive money from any organization that does. Please consider this: People who disagree with you may have honest motives.
From the mailbag: “Sir, I just read your open letter to Joe Biden. I couldn't believe you were serious. You deserve to be ridiculed and laughed at all across the nation. And you should be forced to read ‘Unintened [sic] Consequences’ by John Ross. I despise your kind.”
My response: It’s interesting that a freedom-loving American, such as yourself, would want to force a fellow citizen to read anything. There is a book or two I think you might benefit from reading, but forcing you to do so wouldn’t have occurred to me. As much as I appreciate your recommendation, I’m going to pass up the John Ross’ novel. I have already read a great deal by writers who advocate an insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment, that is, who argue that we have the right keep and bear arms in order to go to war against our own government should it fall into tyrannical hands. Here are some problems with that view: (1) There are always some who believe that the government is now in tyrannical hands. John Wilkes Booth and Timothy McVeigh are two examples. (2) If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to potentially wage war against the federal government, then weapons deserving the highest level of constitutional protection would be those needed to wage war against American armed forces, such as machine guns, grenades, rockets, and even nuclear weapons. (3) With the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson, who had nothing to do with writing or ratifying the Second Amendment, the Founders were not insurrectionists. James Madison, George Washington, John Hancock, John Jay, and Samuel Adams, for example, drew a stark distinction between Americans going to war against the British government – which was a foreign government in the sense that Americans had no representation in Parliament – and their own government once the United States of America was established. I have written about this here (see “Were the Founders Insurrectionists?” at pages 390-404) and here.
From the mailbag: “Mr. Bogus, You repeat something that I hear very frequently, that ‘hunters and sportsmen’ don't need this or that kind of weapon or accessory or ammunition, implying there’s no damage to the 2nd amendment by restrictions on such.
“Which suggests that you believe the 2nd amendment was written to protect the right to go hunting. Clearly that is preposterous. Justice Story, appointed by Thomas Jefferson, described the purpose of the 2nd amendment: to allow the people to protect themselves from sudden invasion, domestic insurrection, and usurpation of power by their rulers. He said nothing about hunting. Nor did anyone else. There is no history of the amendment that would suggest it has anything to do with hunting. While your tone is reasonable, I don't think this idea of 5-round clips is going to go anywhere.”
My response: Good point. While I believe that the Second Amendment was written to guarantee states the right to have armed militia to provide for their own security, and not for personal self-defense, the Supreme Court has held that I am wrong and the Amendment is indeed about self-defense. So you are right, and my mentioning hunting rather than self-defense was sloppy writing on my part. The issue is whether restricting magazines to five rounds would unduly restrict self-defense. I don’t think it would. Someone could still possess two or three gun magazines and quickly reload by changing magazines. That seems more than adequate for self-defense. Lower-capacity magazines might also protect neighbors, who – especially in urban areas – may be at higher risks of being inadvertently shot by someone who believes there is an intruder in his apartment or townhouse and quickly fires, say, twenty rounds. No rights are absolute, and some restrictions are reasonable if they serve legitimate interests and do not unduly burden the right. Whether a five-round, seven-round, or ten-round restriction meets that standard is, of course, open to debate. New York State’s new seven-round restriction may reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and if so, I’ll bet it’s upheld.