with English and colonial American history,rnthe debate is largely irrelevant becausernboth sides are correct. Of coursernthe clause refers to a militia, but a militiarnmade up of individuals who bring theirrnown priate weapons with them to trainrnand fight, the weapons in question beingrnthe appropriate military technology ofrnthe era. Throughout the Middle Ages,rngovernments were deeply involved in enforcingrnthe equivalent of “gun control,”rnwhich meant harassing and fining thernking’s subjects until they could be inducedrnto obey their legal duties to bernarmed sufficiently to help defend thernrealm. From the point of view of an honestrnhistorian, the Second Amendmentrnnot onlv permits individuals to own andrncarry weapons, it implies that such ownershiprnis demanded as a condition of citizenship.rnWe can speculate on why suchrna requirement is not stated explicitly inrnthe Bill of Rights, but 700 years of previousrnstatutes make it pretty clear that thisrnwas intended. Our present legal position,rntherefore, seems a “commonsense” andrn”responsible” compromise between thernludicrous extremes of either banning orrndemanding the private ownership ofrnfirearms.rnhi the interests of consistency, I see nornreason wh the limitations on SecondrnAmendment rights should not be extendedrnto other equally clear parts of the Constitution.rnThink, for example, of the unhappinessrnthat arises from the excessivernuse of the free-speech rights allegedlyrnprotected in the First Amendment,rnwhich allows citizens to criticize theirrnneighbors or even the government.rnDon’t white supremacists abuse theirrnfree-speech rights? Commonsense freeipeechrnlaws would recognize that thernoverbroad language of this clause reflect-rn;d a barbarous age and should be reinter-rnDreted for more advanced modern eondiions.rnA cooling-off period is a naturalrnlevelopment. Before anyone says orrnvrites anything which might cause dis-rn;omfort or unhappiness to some individlalrnor group, he should be required tornubmit his remarks a week or so in adancernto some agency, perhaps a Bureaurnif Tobacco, Firearms, and Harsh Lan-rn;uage, where trained psychological exlertsrncould assess the speaker’s suitabilityrn3 engage in controversy. The discomfitigrnspeech could then be presented pubcly,rnsubject to a limitation on the numerrnof times in a month that speechrncenses should be granted to any one inividual.rnIt would be particularly importantrnto enforce a federal standard here, sornthat citizens could not utter speech inrnone of the less responsible jurisdictions-rnSan Francisco, say, or Las Vegas—whichrncould then be imported into a more politernenvironment, such as Washington,rnD.C. A decade or so of stringent licensingrncould greatly increase the degree ofrncivility in this country. And I have notrneven begun to discuss the potential of civilrnlitigation to help clean up the damagernwrought by the extremist and absolutistrnupholders of the First Amendment. Irncan’t wait until the Marching Momsrnlatch on to this issue.rnMaking fun of the Million Moms andrntheir media admirers would be muchrneasier if there were not painful signs thatrnthe political currents are clearly movingrnin their direction, and that the right torngun ownership is under greater dangerrnthan ever before. The consequences arernfrightening. If we cannot defend the eminentlvrnlucid words of the SecondrnAmendment, the intent of which is clearrnto any unbiased reader, why should anvrnother part of the Constitution be sacrosanct?rnCommenting on tiie subversionrnof the Constitution in the 1850’s, Lincolnrnremarked, “Our progress in degeneracyrnappears to me to be pretiy rapid.”rnGradually, American principles werernqualified and perverted by fanatics untilrnthe law was nothing more than a partisanrntool. If the Constitution was to be so debased,rnLincoln declared, “I should preferrnemigrating to some country where the’rnmake no pretense of loving liberty—tornRussia, for instance, where despotismrncan be taken pure, and without the basernalloy of hypocrisy.” Anyone for a trip?rnPhilip Jenkins is Distinguished Professorrnof History and Religious Studies atrnPennsylvania State University.rnMEDIArnBig Laughs WithrnImportant Peoplernby Janet Scott BarlowrnLast spring, ABC News sent moviernheartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio torninterview Bill Clinton for an Earth Dayrnspecial, a decision which reflected a lovelyrnsymmetry: In terms of himian maturation,rnthe 25-year-old actor and the 54-rnyear-old President are approximately thernsame age (19).rnSymmetry aside, all hell broke loose.rnThe resultant tempest, played out overrnseveral weeks, was classic: full of ironyrnaplenty, hypocrisy galore, and displays ofrnego so boundless that only celebritiesrncould be the source.rnThe story goes that when ABC’s veteranrncorrespondents got wind of the Di-rnCaprio/Clinton interview, they pitched arnfit. Oh my, there was displeasure. Itrnseems that having Mr. DiCaprio interviewrnMr. Clinton on Issues of Importancernhad violated that holy of holies,rnjournalistic credibility—a commodityrnthat heretofore had been, as every newsrnconsumer in America knows, absolutelyrnrock solid and angel pure until youngrnLeo winged in from Hollywood to defilernthe temple. (Are you laughing yet?)rnLet us take a closer look at the ABCrnlineup that got so indignant at thernprospect of a punk actor encroaching onrnits pristine turf. First, there is Sam Donaldson,rnwhose preparation for his Sundayrnshow This Week appears so superficialrnand meager that every question he asksrnand every observation he makes can berncounted on, unfailingly, to be the wordiestrnpossible example of the previousrnweek’s received wisdom. Donaldson’srnSunday partner is Cokie Roberts, whom Irnhave come to think of as Miss Cokie becausernshe is given to rolling her eyes andrnannouncing how “mothers woidd handlernit,” regardless of the topic being discussed.rnRoberts is the June Cleaver ofrnAmerican journalism, and most Sundays,rnshe looks like it’s all she can do tornkeep from pointing a finger and sputtering,rn”Sam, go to your room!”rnSharing the list with Sam and MissrnCokie is ABC’s anchor-god, Peter Jennings,rna man whose on-air urbanity hasrnevolved over the years into genuine hauteur,rnas he gives off immistakable hints ofrnbarely controlled disdain for even,’ politicalrnconservative who has walked the f;rcernof the earth since the beginning of time.rnAnd let us not forget Diane Sawyer,rnshe of the wow-have-I-scored “interview”rnwith six-year-old Elian Gonzalez, anrnevent that was redefined as a “visit” afterrnbeing roundly criticized as exploitative.rnNo matter. The important thing wasrnhow empathic, how downright sweet,rnSawyer appeared as she sat on the floor,rnthe better to “relate” to little Elian.rnFinally, we have arrived at BarbararnAUGUST 2000/43rnrnrn