William F. Buckley, Jr., on Gun Control

[Bulldog44]

WFB's latest article is entitled "Exit Gun Control".

Read it here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley040902.asp

Exit Gun Control
These days, it’s hands-off the Second Amendment.

News stories from around the nation identifying gun control as a trip-wire issue dividing conservatives and liberals don't surprise. The events of September 11 have heightened the resolution of the "individual rights" interpreters of the Second Amendment. These are distinguished from the "collective rights" faction. The former stare the language in the face and come away with a reading different from the collective crowd. At issue is the interpretation of a single sentence: "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." Opponents of comprehensive gun-control laws view this as a constitutional guarantee of the right of Americans to own guns. An easy to way to put it is that they view the amendment as if the initial clause were irrelevant, leaving us simply with a guarantee against federal gun control that challenges the right of citizens to own weapons. By contrast, of course, there are those (roughly speaking, the nation's intelligentsia) who insist that the Second Amendment goes no further than to say that Congress may not legislate against the right of individual states to organize militias of arms-bearing citizens.

The learned arguments go on and on. The gun-control lobby has suffered two severe blows in the recent period. One of them is that Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard, much esteemed by American liberals, in part because of his enthusiasm for abortion rights, having examined the historical documents, opines that indeed the people who framed the Bill of Rights intended to guarantee individual, not merely collective, gun-ownership rights. And the Fifth Circuit ruled in the same direction in United States v. Emerson.

As with other contentions requiring constitutional interpretation, the division over gun control is only one part historical (What did the framers intend?). Another, more significant part, is political (What does the American public want?) But it's better, and safer, to ask the question: What do the American people reasonably want? It probably could be established by polling that the American people would be happy to hang anybody who burns the U.S. flag, but such sentiments are not likely to be codified.

It's more fruitful to argue reasonable limitations on gun ownership. A comic routine in Las Vegas in 1980 featured a debate between presidential contenders Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter on the matter of gun control, Walter Cronkite presiding. "What about atom bombs, Governor Reagan? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to have atom bombs?"

"Well, Mr. Cronkite," the comedian answered pensively, "just small atom bombs."

The assertion of a right at ridiculous lengths — the absolutization of it, in the manner of the American Civil Liberties Union — is a way of undermining it. If the Constitution says you can say anything you want under any circumstances, then you can shout fire! in a crowded movie theater. If you have the right to remain silent in all circumstance, then you can decline to give testimony vital to another citizen's freedom and rights. If you insist that a citizen has the right to own a machine gun, you discredit his right to own a pistol or a rifle.

What ripened in the aftermath of September 11 was a sensibility — of the individual citizen's dependence, at the margin, on his own resources. George Will put it pithily (as ever), when he asked, Call for a cop, an ambulance, and a pizza, and ask which is likelier to get to you first. A rifle in the closet wouldn't have been useful against the swooping 767s that struck the Twin Towers. But a sense of the implications of chaos and anarchy was sharpened. An analyst 20 years ago remarked that an 82-year-old couple living in an apartment in the Bronx, after twice being assaulted, found it possible to sleep at night only after acquiring a pistol and advertising its presence on a note pinned to the outside door.

Both sides will find it useful to temper extreme expressions of their positions. But it is certainly true that at this moment it is likelier that congressmen running for election or reelection in November will not press the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

[4V50 Gary]

Pompous Windbag who has propagated

disingenious arguments divulging his ignorance of the Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Emerson was won by default and the "people" has been interpreted by the courts to signify an "individual" right and not a "collective" right. Send him back to school for training (potty training).

 

[Mal H]

Gary, with all due respect, I'm not sure we read the same article above. Re-reading his last two paragraphs, I have the sense that he feels the RKBA is indeed an individual right.

 

[4V50 Gary]

Mal - to me it seems that he is lamenting how politicians are turning towards supporting the Second Amendment as people become acutely aware of that they must assume responsibility for their own safety and not entrust it to the police.

 

[Waterdog]

The news media always goes with the flow.

Waterdog

 

[Mal H]

Knowing that if WFB leaned any further to the right he would fall off the fence, I may be reading his article in that light. In truth, to me, he is subtly giving advice to politicians not to press for gun control 'cause it won't wash with the public. As usual he presents both sides of the argument in his writing and gives good points about each. But, it seems the preponderence of his points seem to go against gun control and for the individuals right to defend themselves.

 

[Tamara]

Waterdog,

Do you know who W.F. Buckley, Jr. is?

"Goes with the flow"? This is the guy whose avowed purpose in life is to "stand athwart the flow of history shouting 'Stop!'".

 

[stellarpod]

WFBJr. is very OBVIOUSLY pro-2nd Amendment in this article and several others. What are you smoking 4V50 Gary? I don't know how you could interpret the article in any other fashion.

 

[Coronach]

Uhm...Waterdog, Gary...read that again.

Mike

 

[Skorzeny]

Here I believe he is giving a "positive" (as in "what is") description of the current political climate, rather than giving his "normative" (as in "what should be") opinion on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The two are distinctly different - and understanding that is the difference between someone who engages in politics ("the art of what is possible") and a crusade.

Skorzeny

 

[Justin]

Methinks that Mr. Buckley doesn't completely understand the topic at hand

There are several points in the essay with which I feel compelled to pick nits.
First off:

Opponents of comprehensive gun-control laws view this as a constitutional guarantee of the right of Americans to own guns. An easy to way to put it is that they view the amendment as if the initial clause were irrelevant, leaving us simply with a guarantee against federal gun control that challenges the right of citizens to own weapons.

Mr. Buckley's understanding is not, apparently, as in-depth as it ought to be.
Those of us who believe in the RKBA do not "view the amendment as if the initial clase were irrelevant..."
As I understand it, in the traditional sense of the the term, "well regulated" means to be properly stocked, cared for, or equipped, something similar to a 'well regulated' clock is one that is cared for and functions properly. A 'well regulated' militia would be one that is allowed to own or possess the weapons commonly held and used by a standing army.
Regulated in this sense is not indicative of red tape, or being watched over by the government. It refers to the militia having the ability to be well provisioned; possessed of the tools that they need.

But it's better, and safer, to ask the question: What do the American people reasonably want?

No, Mr. Buckley, it isn't better or safer to ask what the American people want. Such a statement smacks of collectivist groupthink. Such a statement could be interpreted to mean that the rights of the many trump the rights of the few, or that somehow rights can be multiplied; that the rights of two people trump the rights of a single individual.
Thomas Jefferson would probably b*tch slap you for that statement.
After all, there was a time when the American people thought it reasonable to stick Japanese Americans into internment camps and force them to forfeit their property.

It's more fruitful to argue reasonable limitations on gun ownership...If you insist that a citizen has the right to own a machine gun, you discredit his right to own a pistol or a rifle.

I think this statement is what a lot of people here are torqued off about. I'm inclined to agree with them. After all, who else do we hear bleating about 'reasonable limitations?'
But if owning a machinegun is unreasonable, what sort of firearm can be reasonably owned? At what point is a weapon's cyclical rate of fire low enough for it to be moral?
Mr. Buckley offers the classic example of yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater. Agreed, such speech isn't covered by the 1AM because of the injury/death (read that as an infringement of the right to life) that could result from the ensuing panic.
But to equate that with the ownership of a machinegun is ludicrous. After all, how does my owning a machinegun cause the rights of another to be infringed?
And if machinegun ownership leads to rights abuse, why do we allow the police to have them?

Mr. Buckley is indeed defending the 2AM, but I can't decide whether his defense is back-handed, ill-informed, or simply room temperature.

 

[Bud Helms]

Probably more room temperature from our point of view. WFBJr is consistent above all. His arguments are reasoned and moderate. Not what we'd like to see shouted from the roof tops, I'm sure. No passion, just reason, from his point of view.

Caliban, did you see this comparison?

As with other contentions requiring constitutional interpretation, the division over gun control is only one part historical (What did the framers intend?). Another, more significant part, is political (What does the American public want?) But it's better, and safer, to ask the question: What do the American people reasonably want? It probably could be established by polling that the American people would be happy to hang anybody who burns the U.S. flag, but such sentiments are not likely to be codified.

Extraction:

1. What did the framers intend?
2. What does the American public want?
3. What do the American people reasonably want?
   [/list=1]
   
   I don't quite see the signifigance of the reasonability point he makes, but it is there in his text. He obvious means something by it. And yes, it does seem hair-splitting. However he does make the point that we are not a democracy, but a republic, by the last sentence in the above quote.

 

[Mal H]

Thanks sensop. You saved me a lot of typing on a rebuttal to caliban on the "... want" vs. "... reasonably want" thing.

Isn't he saying, "what do the masses want" vs. "what do the reasonable, think-for-themselves masses want", i.e., "what is right"?

 

[another okie]

4V50 Gary: I think you're confusing the Emerson case with the Miller case.

One way to respond to the "should you have nukes" argument is to say that the amendment is designed to protect militia-type weapons - rifles, pistols, etc. I don't know whether the colonial militia had cannons or not. Based on accounts of Lexington and Concord I have read it would appear not, but I haven't investigated it in depth.

 

[FLM]

On his old TV show, Buckley always took a pro-gun position when debating liberals and National Review is a very pro-gun magazine.

 

[Christopher II]

Eh. Buckley is a typical right-wing socialist. He's pro-gun, as long as it's convienient to be so. No real values or moral courage.

It's more fruitful to argue reasonable limitations on gun ownership.

WFB's idea of "reasonable" might be a bit different from yours or mine.

The assertion of a right at ridiculous lengths — the absolutization of it, in the manner of the American Civil Liberties Union — is a way of undermining it. If the Constitution says you can say anything you want under any circumstances, then you can shout fire! in a crowded movie theater.

I really wish that the anti-rights crowd would come up with a new pet argument, this one has more holes than a ten-year-old pair of skivvies. Also, it's the BILL OF RIGHTS, you nit!

I would further submit that the limiting of a right, the stating that a right is anything BUT absolute, is an even more henious way of undermining it.

- Chris

 

[Coltdriver]

I used to be a great fan of WFB. Used to watch Firing Line even when I was a kid. Used to subscribe to the National Review.

Then, after reading it long enough, I came to the conclusion that WFB and his gang are really not as Conservative as they would have you believe.

They are, and WFB is, one who believes in the state first and in the justification of everything else after. They just have a brand of statism that is different than a traditional Communist or Socialist. The difference is that with a Communist you know what you are dealing with.

With WFB and crowd, you don't really know what you are dealing with. His waffling and obfuscation on the article above being a great example. In it he referes to the "initial clause". Friends, Mr Buckley's command of the English language is very well known and respected and he knows full well that the initial clause he refers to is, indeed, not a clause nor is it a modifier.

Like I said, you don't know what you are dealing with when it comes to Mr Buckley and the National Review.

 

[Pepperbox]

WFB, Jr....

the same man who wrote 'Atlantic High'... about sailing trans-atlantic... on a crewed yacht whilst consuming Chateau' Briande and Dom Perignon...

I do though sometimes find myself in agreement with him... when I either know the definition of a word he uses or have a dictionary nearby.

He is enteraining

 

[FLM]

I've got a picture of a NR cover if I can figure out how to attach it.

 

[FLM]

Won't work, it's too big. Anyway, it's the April 2000 issue and it has a picture of a S&W mod 10. The line above it says "Mans Best Friend". Below the picture is an article entitled "The Low Dishonest Campaign against Firearms" written by Dave Kopel and John J. Miller. Just one of many pro-gun articles that have appeared in NR the last few years.