With increasing frequency, Jack Batson inflicts upon us his bizarre interpretations of facts and events. In his column (Jan. 26, “Long struggle ahead on gun control”), Mr. Batson opines, “If the Second Amendment allowed unrestricted gun ownership, it would have been placed in the First Amendment.” Say what?
That statement is so absurd as to boggle one’s mind. If one follows his logic, then in Batson’s America our protections from unreasonable search and seizure, from double jeopardy, our right to a speedy trial, from self-indictment, and so forth – rights enumerated in amendments other than the First – would take on inferior roles. After all, as he says, if they meant what they said, they “. . . would have been placed in the First Amendment.”
Mr. Batson then thoroughly confuses himself and the reader by trying to link the Second Amendment to Article I, section eight, of the Constitution. He is trying to mix government duties (Constitution) and individual rights (Bill of Rights). Mr. Batson would do well to do research and to read the history of the development of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Founders gave us a framework of both liberty and governance. Their care in drawing up those documents has allowed our great republic to flourish and our citizens to enjoy freedom as no other people in the world enjoy.
The rest of his shallow essay is a recital of straw men, which he knocks down, and of anti-gun sentiment, which does nothing to advance the dialogue about gun rights and duties that needs to take place. Another reminder that he and everyone engaging in this dialogue needs to remember: The Bill of Rights does not grant us rights, it spells out what rights we already have and places restrictions on the government to protect those rights.
Mr. Batson would do well to stop trying to create alternate history. The true history we have stands well on its own and does not need his distortions and falsities.