[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1249-E1250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            STATEMENT BY DANIEL LUZOR REGARDING GUN CONTROL

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 18, 1997

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would 
like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school 
student from Vermont, who was speaking at my recent town meeting on 
issues facing young people.


       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. That is the Second Amendment in 
     its entirety.
       The Second Amendment was one of the first amendments to be 
     ratified being part of the Bill of Rights and is also the 
     shortest and arguably the vaguest of all amendments in the 
     constitution. Despite all of the discussions surrounding the 
     issue, it is still not clear precisely what the amendment 
     means.
       The Second Amendment grew out of a law passed by British 
     Parliament during the latter period of the Colonial era. The 
     law effectively prohibited any colonist from possessing a 
     firearm of any kind so as to prevent any possibility of 
     rebellion. Eventually, of course, the colonists disregarded 
     that law, overthrew the British and set up their own nation. 
     Later once the Revolutionary War had been won and the United 
     States was relatively secure in its status as an independent 
     country, the founding fathers decided that it was necessary 
     to formally allow the people a means of defense against the 
     government.
       One of the founding principles of the Revolution had been 
     that the people had the right to overthrow the government if 
     they believed it to be unworthy. One of the most effective 
     means to overthrow the government was, of course, with 
     firearms and so the Second Amendment was born.
       Since the Second Amendment mentions the militia 
     specifically, one would assume that the right to keep and 
     bear arms relates specifically to the militia and that the 
     intended meaning of the Second Amendment was that the people 
     have the right to use arms as members of the militia in order 
     to protect themselves from tyrannical governments.
       On the other hand, if one considers the state of the world 
     in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, the notion of 
     the founding fathers allowing exclusively members of state 
     militias to bear arms seemed ridiculous. Most people in the 
     18th Century needed firearms in order to survive because most 
     food needed to be hunted. Personal firearms were a necessity 
     for survival and yet in today's society with cheap hamburger 
     in every supermarket and good steak in every expensive 
     restaurant, firearms are no longer necessary for survival. 
     Therefore, one of the original reasons for the Second 
     Amendment has perhaps been outlived.
       What then is the use of the Second Amendment? I believe 
     that the Second Amendment's relevance in today's world 
     pertains to

[[Page E1250]]

     the militia. It is essential for the survival of American 
     ideals that Americans have the right to overthrow corrupt 
     government. That was one of the main principles behind the 
     Second Amendment, that Americans should be allowed to possess 
     firearms in order to defend themselves as members of state 
     militias.
       Regardless of the intentions of the Second Amendment, the 
     wording itself is rather vague. It does not specifically 
     state in the Bill of Rights the extent to which firearms 
     should be allowed. Therefore, it seems that simply from 
     reading the Bill of Rights and without accounting for other 
     factors, the possession of firearms can be limited although 
     not prohibited altogether.
       It is also important to remember that the Constitution was 
     written with the awareness that it would be changed, that as 
     the world progressed, new issues would become important and 
     old issues would become less important.
       We have repealed an amendment before and while I do not 
     necessarily advocate repealing the Second Amendment, the 
     amendments to the Constitution are not set in stone and if 
     times change, the Constitution ought to change with it. 
     Perhaps it is time to rethink the issue of gun freedom. Is 
     the possession of a firearm a general necessity? Is the 
     private possession of a handgun ever necessary? And, most 
     importantly, do the risks of gun freedom outweigh the 
     benefits?

     

                          ____________________