proposed regulator)’ measures that he feltrnunderuiined the First Amendment andrnpaved tlie way to censorship. I anticipatedrnhis position; however, 1 didn’t anticipaternKoch’s reply. The former mayor pointedrnout that the slipper)’-slope argument thatrnthe TV honcho was making was exactlyrnthe same as that made by those who sawrnall attempts at gun control as underminingrnthe Second Amendment and pavingrnthe vva’ to gun confiscation. Hoisted byrnhis own petard, the TV honcho’s responsernwas hilarious. He blanched andrnmanaged to sputter out something to therneffect that some slippery slopes werernmore desirable than others.rnI can’t remember who that T ‘ executivernwas or what network he headed, butrnit real]}- doesn’t make any difference. I’drnbe willing to bet, and I’m not a bettingrnman, that the vast majorit)’ of gatekeepersrnof the mainstream electronic and printrnmedia, entertainment as well as news,rnwould ha’e responded to a perceivedrnthreat to the First Amendment just as herndid, and that they would have beenrnequalK’ nonplussed when called upon tornreconcile their views on the First Amendmentrnwith tlieir iews on the SecondrnAmendment. In First Amendment-lovingrnjournalistic circles, “The Secondrn.Amendment gets no respect,” as MikernMoore, then editor oi The Quill, thernmagazine of the Society of ProfessionalrnJournalists, acknowledged in a columnrnby that title in the March 1990 issue ofrnhis magazine. Charlton Heston, tliernmoie actor who has become the presidentrnof the National Rifle Association,rnonce dro e home tlie same point beforernthe National Press Club, and what hernand Moore had to say applies to mainstreamrnmedia circles in general.rnIn a USA Today column writtenrnwhen he was president of NBC, MichaelrnGartner called for the repeal of the SecondrnAmendment. Tom Brokaw, SamrnDonaldson, Michael Kinsley, GeorgernWill, Hodding Carter, Martin Schram,rnLeonard Larsen, Don Shoemaker, BobrnMoos, Robert Reno, and the editors ofrnthe Washington Post have either dismissedrnthe right to keep and bear arms asrna collective right, or called it an outdatedrnindividual right that has withered away orrnthat should be repealed. And Robert Altman,rnthe producer of ABC’s Gun, a blatanthrnanti-gun-ownership series fromrn1997, acknowledges that he “disdains thernprevalence of guns in American liomes.”rnAs he told a Washington Post reporter: “Irndon’t care what the founding fathersrnsaid—they didn’t have a police force torncall on.” In a 1993 Editor & Publisherrncolumn, former Boston Globe editorrnThomas Winship ignored the SecondrnAmendment altogether when he calledrnfor a national newspaper crusade againstrnguns.rnParade posed the following rhetoricalrnc[uestion, complete with answer, to anyonernthinking about entering its photographyrncontest celebrating the 1991 bicentennialrnof the Bill of Rights: “How wouldrnvou convey the sense of the SecondrnAmendment in a photograph? Perhaps arnsoldier or a Marine or a sailor or an airmanrndeparting for duf’, a scene with arnmilitary flavor, a graduation, or mavbe arnNational Guardsman helping in a settingrnunrelated to arms or battle” (emphasisrnadded). This after informing readers thatrnwe have long since overcome tiie fears ofrnthe federal government that had “inspiredrnthe language o f the amendment.rnLife’s bicentennial treatment of thernSecond Amendment acknowledged thatrnan armed populace was necessary whenrnthe Bill of Rights was ratified, but made itrnclear that widespread gun ownership isrntroublesome now and that the amendmentrnis anachronistic. A 1984 AtlantarnConstitution political cartoon had BenjaminrnFranklin (who had nothing to dornwith the Second Amendment) commentingrnto his colleagues: “We’d betterrnsay it’s for a ‘well-regulated militia’ or ever)rnnut in the country will think he has arnright to own a gun.” And a television specialrnon the Bill of Rights back in thern1970’s included a symbolic representationrnof each of the first ten amendmentsrnto the Constitution. The logo for thernSecond Amendment, which was givenrnshort shrift in the discussion, looked likernit had been lifted off of a box of “Ann andrnHammer” baking soda—a hammer, notrna sword or a gun, gripped in a hand at thernend of a muscular arm with a rolled-uprnsleeve. One could get the impressionrnthat the Second Amendment guaranteedrnus the right to bare our arms.rnI could go on and on, but publisherrnLyle Stuarf s comments bring me back tornmy central point. Stuart once justifiedrnpublishing The Turner Diaries, the militantiyrnracist and antisemitic novel that allegedlyrnserved as convicted OklahomarnCih’ bomber Timothy McVeigh’s inspiration,rnin this way: “I’m a nut on just arnfew things in life. I’ve always tested thernlimits of the First Amendment. I’m arngreat believer in letting anybody publishrnthe most outrageous, impopular thingsrnthere are.” Ah, but Stuart has a socialrnconscience. He donates one dollar of everyrnsale of this $12 paperback to “an antihandgunrnorganization.” Another deepthinkingrnFirst Amendment supporterrnwho completely ignores Second Amendmentrnconcerns.rnThe Founding Fathers left us a milewidernpaper trail explaining the purpose ofrnthe Second Amendment. Several scholarlyrnbooks and over 50 law rc iew articlesrn(many of them by prominent, non-gunowning,rnliberal scholars like SanfordrnLevinson of the University of Texas, WilliamrnVan Alstyne of Duke, and AkhilrnAmar of Yale) hae detailed this paperrntrail for anyone willing to take the time tornread them. Consider what James Madison’srnfriend Tench Coxe had to say onrnthe subject before the ratificafion of thernBill of Rights:rnAs civil rulers, not having tiieir dutv’rnto the people duly before them,rnmay attempt to t)’rannize, and asrnthe militar)’ forces which must bernoccasionally raised to defend ourrncountrv’, might pervert their powerrnto the injur)’ of their fellow citizens,rnthe people are confirmed by thernnext article in their right to keeprnand bear their private arms [emphasisrnadded].rnIn other words, in spite of what the AtlantarnConstitution’s cartoonist may think,rnthe Founders did believe that even’ lawabidingrnAmerican citizen had a right tornown a gun. And the main reason that individualrngun ownership was consideredrnto be important was to keep in line thernarmed agents of the state that Robert Altmanrnand the Pollvannas at Parade trust sornmuch. And for the information of TomrnBrokaw, Hodding Carter, and the othersrnwho believe that the Second Amendmentrnis anachronistic and defended onlyrnby right-wing nuts in the 20th century,rnconsider the following comment: “Thernright of citizens to bear arms is just onernmore guarantee against arbitrary government,rnone more safeguard against arntyrann) which now appears remote inrnAmerica, but which historically hasrnproved to be always possible.” The wordsrnare those of Mr. Liberal himself, the laternHubert H. Humphrey, and were circulatedrnin a 1959 written statement on thernSecond Amendment, but they expressrnsentiments that went unquestioned imtilrnthe middle of this century. For the furtherrninformation of people like GeorgernDECEMBER 1999/43rnrnrn