BURRISS: Absolutist approach to Constitution has unintended consequences on The Murfreesboro Post

Sidebar Ads

BURRISS: Absolutist approach to Constitution has unintended consequences

Related Articles

BURRISS: Print provides accuracy and detail

BURRISS: Intellectual property rights protect ‘ works of the human spirit’

DESJARLAIS: The Real Objective of President Obama’s Gun Control Efforts

BURRISS: New Google goggles will be social headache

BURRISS: Singer opened doors for many

WOODY: Nothing wrong with NRA race sponsorship

GUEST EDITORIAL: Keep handgun records public

VINSON: Misperception could be deadly these days

Gun control debate highlights political divide

President visits upper Midwest to talk gun safety

View All

By: LARRY BURRISS, Post Columnist

Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:00 am

During the last few weeks the National Rifle Association has been taking what is known as an “absolutist” position with regard to the Constitution.

Officials have been telling us the Constitution “says what it means, and means what it says.” Which, they say, means the right to keep and bear arms is absolute.

So, I wonder if they also apply that logic to the First Amendment, which, I might remind people, is also part of the Constitution.

By way of reminder, the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of press and speech.

In other words, a person who takes an absolutist position believes there can be no restrictions on the press.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that when the writers of the Constitution spoke of the press, they meant what we know of as traditional newspapers. What are the kinds of things would newspapers be able to print, assuming you’re an absolutist, such as the NRA claims to be.

Well, for starters, you could print child pornography.

Remember, “no law,” some people say, really means “no law.”

People who really believe the Constitution is not open to any interpretation or limitation, must, by definition, believe you can’t restrict the printing of child pornography.

Or, let’s try national security secrets.

We all know there are lots of restrictions regarding classified information.

And all of these laws violate the absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment.

Do absolutists really think newspapers should be allowed to print whatever secrets they find?

Does the National Rifle Association really believe there should be no restrictions on child pornography?

Apparently so.

After all, according to the leadership, the Constitution says what it means, and “no law” means “no law.”

Saying the Constitution is not open to any interpretation leads to some pretty bizarre results.

And it’s obvious the leadership of National Rifle Association hasn’t really thought their absolutist position through.

Tagged under Absolutist, Constitution, Gun Control, Larry Burriss, National Rifle Association

Member Opinions:

By: bota on 2/14/13
The spokesperson for the NRA and that little dictator from N.Korea seem to share some of the same logic.

By: BCD2X_MTSU_S13 on 2/14/13
I agree with the Mr.Burriss that an absolutist outlook on the constitution is outdated and nearly impossible. Many Americans believe in the Bill of Rights until specific issues that go against what society thinks is socially acceptable are brought into question. In my opinion some things should be protected, I agree that child pornography and classified information should not be published, not because the first amendment needs to be changed, but because it is morally wrong.

In the terms of the second amendment, I think that people should be able to have guns with in reason. I do not understand why a civilian in the United States would need a military grade automatic weapon unless they are a member of the military. But I do believe someone who has gone through the proper classes and has the required licenses should have the right given to us in the second amendment.

At the end of the day not every gun owning American is a criminal, and the people who are doing the school shootings and murders would not change their actions because we changed a law. They would have planned on breaking one law, what is to stop them from breaking another?