Category | Op Ed

Freedom of speech vs. the right to bear arms: A different point of view

Published on October 13, 2009 by Justin Hayes

In my fellow columnist James Swift’s most recent piece, “Freedom of speech v. the right to bear arms,” he makes the argument that freedom of speech should have primacy over our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Should this same line of thinking apply to every other amendment in the Constitution?

Should the First Amendment have primacy over the Fourth Amendment? Would Mr. Swift be okay with the government entering his home without a search warrant as long as he still had his freedom of speech?

The Bill of Rights was not placed in the Constitution as an order of most important rights to least important ones. Each right in the first ten amendments were what the founding fathers believed to be essential to a free society.

Before I refute Mr. Swift’s argument about the Second Amendment, I think it’s important to look at some of his claims about the First Amendment. He says that the vagueness of the First Amendment makes it hard to apply to “today’s America.”

As an example, he writes that “there’s nary a mention of ‘hate speech’” in the amendment. Besides the fact that the phrase ‘hate speech’ was probably not around at that time, the founding fathers left no mention of this sort of speech, because they realized that any form of prohibition of speech is bad. It is also a dangerous path toward tyranny when the government starts to determine the motivation (i.e. hatred or anger) behind a person’s speech.

In regards to the Second Amendment, I do not believe that Mr. Swift understands the true purpose behind its addition to the Bill of Rights. It was not intended to show those “no-good redcoats what-for,” but to protect the citizens of America from the intrusion of a tyrannical government, foreign or domestic. It was a vital check on the power of government and a way for the American people to preserve their liberties.

The founding fathers, taking their cues from the great political minds of John Locke and others, realized that humans had a natural right to self-defense. We have a right to defend ourselves from the ability of others, whether it is another individual or the government, to infringe upon our life, liberty or property. The Second Amendment is there to protect that right.

Mr. Swift boldly assumes that “the Second Amendment has killed more Americans than any non-organic, biosocial element in our nation’s history.” This is a horribly misguided argument because the Second Amendment does not protect the right to murder. If someone uses a gun to kill another person or commit homicide (not in self-defense), then of course, that is an illegal act. Maybe Mr. Swift should look at some statistics on the ability of people to own guns and crime rates.

After Washington, D.C. instituted their ban on guns in 1976, their murder rate rose 134 percent from that point until 2002. In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun-control law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies went up 44 percent and assaults rose 8.6 percent. From 1987 to 1996, after Florida implemented its right-to-carry law, the firearm homicide rate decreased by 37 percent while the handgun homicide rate decreased by 41 percent.

Let’s look at our wonderful city of Kennesaw. After it passed an ordinance requiring every household (with a few exceptions) to own a handgun, the violent crime-rate fell by 74 percent compared to the previous year. Even in spite of Kennesaw’s dramatic increase in population over the last two decades, crime rates still remain significantly lower than the metro area or even national averages.

Law-abiding citizens, as in those who have no intention of committing a crime with a gun, become defenseless when a maniac decides to go on a shooting spree if they do not have the right to bear arms. If guns are banned, just as in the case of alcohol during prohibition and drugs today, those willing to break the law will still be able to buy firearms on the black market.

Lastly, I do not really understand his reference to Nazi Germany or fascism, but let it be noted that Germany did establish gun control laws in 1938-as did China in 1935, the Soviet Union in 1929, Uganda in 1970 and other oppressive regimes. The phrase “mass extermination” comes to mind for each of these cases.

Agree? Disagree? Call into The Gerb Report, Thursdays from 7-9 p.m. on KSU Owl Radio. Listen: ksuradio.com. Call in: 678-797-2665.