100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

June 09, 1993 - Image 5

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily Summer Weekly, 1993-06-09

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Wednesday, June 9. 993 - The Michigan aiy Sumr Weeldy -5
VIEWPOINT
Gun control proponents ignore right to revolution

By OLIVER GIANCOLA
The emotional arguments of opponents and
advocates of gun control can be overwhelming.
But in the passionate debate over gun control we
often forget that the Second Amendment is a
fundamentalrightguaranteed by the Billof Rights.
If we analyze the Second Amendment with the
same care and concern that we normally use
when discussing the much-revered First Amend-
ment, we see that there are sound historical and
political reasons for upholding citizens' rights to
gun ownership. When seen in this way, it is clear
that the Second Amendment protects the right to
revolution.
Our government was founded by a revolu-
tion. But our founders did notsee their revolution
as a one-time-only event. Rather, the founders
thought that the right to revolution is essential to
a person's political self-expression. Thomas
Jefferson captured this idea in the Declaration of

Independence. He wrote that in order to secure
the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty, and
the pursuit of Happiness," "Governments are
institutedamong Men, deriving their justpowers
from the consent of the governed ... [and] when-
ever any Form of Government becomes destruc-
tive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or abolish it, and to institute new Govern-
ment..."
The Second Amendment protects this right.
The Second Amendment, one of the ten amend-
ments to the U.S. Constitution, states, "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."
The debate over the wording of the Second
Amendment has obscured its revolutionary con-
text.Gun controladvocates assert that the people's
right to bear arms is contingentupon their partici-
pation in a militia. They argue that we no longer

need our own weapons because the U.S. military
protects us from foreign invaders. Since militias
are obsolete, they maintain, so is the Second
Amendment.
The founders, however, saw militias (and
citizen ownership of military firearms) as an
important check on government tyranny.
Alexander Hamilton believed,"If circumstances
should at any time oblige the governmentto form
an army of any magnitudethat army can never be
formidable to the liberties of the people while
there is a large body of citizens, little if at all
inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms,
who stand ready to defend their rights and those
of their fellow citizens." In Hamilton's view, a
government can use its professional army to
suppress its citizens. The threat of revolution isan
important deterrent against this kind of abuse.
Gun ownership is essential to maintaining this
threat.

The right to revolution - the ultimate act of
political self-expression - is important to any
government which is truly run by and for the
people. If this right seems unnecessary in today's
democracy, think again. How much say did you
have in the decision to send troops to Iraq? Who
really controls the military - the citizens or the
government? Who can say whether such power
would ever be used here in the United States?
While we have responsible political leaders,
we can trust that this will never happen. Right
now, we might not feel the need to retain our own
weapons.
But in the future, when we do need to express
ourselves violently against government tyranny,
it may be too late to get that right back once it has
been lost. The only way to ensure this right for
ourselves and for future generations is to guard
the Second Amendment.
Giancola is a Daily Arts staff writer

LETTERS

'We need the American Jobs Protection Act with or without NAFTA'

To the Daily:
Michigan workers don't need another give-
away trade treaty that sends their jobs to another
country. Instead they need the American Jobs
Protection Act to save them from a problem we
already have. Before we talk about any new
NorthAmericanFreeTradeagreement(NAFTA),
let's fix the old one.
Fornearly 30years,thousandsofgood Ameri-
can manufacturing jobs have paraded south via
the U.S.-Mexico Maquiladora program, which
encourages companies to jump across the Rio
Grande to a duty-free manufacturing zone. In
1965, the Maquiladora strip had 12 plants em-
ploying 3,000 workers. It now numbers 2,000
plants employing over a half-million workers.
These jobs should have gone to workers in
this country - 100,000 of them are Big Three
autojobs. Many more of them are with Anerican-
owned auto parts suppliers. Our Michigan
autoworker families aren't the only victims. Ac-
cording to a 1993 study, we've lost 1,800 non-
auto jobs to Mexico in the past 10 years.
Our jobs went south for one reason: a cheap
Maquiladora labor force earning less than SI per
hour, with no pensions or benefits. Their income

will never enable them to purchase as many
American-made goods as NAFTA supporters
claim.
Wefaceotherinternational threatstoourjobs.
Hong Kong pays an average ofS53.20per hour for
labor. Korea pays $3.82; Singapore, $3.78; Sri
Lanka, 31 cents; Taiwan,S3.59; Portugal, $3.69.
These abysmal wages, all less than half of the
U.S.average,are luring uncaring American own-
ers to move overseas.
The targets of my American Jobs Protection
Act are companies that want to exploit this cheap
labor. If we can't encourage them to reconsider
and stay home, then they should be discouraged
from moving to a country where Stone Age
working conditions exist.
We must keep the jobs we have. First on the
list in the American Jobs Protection Act is a
requirement for companies considering a move
to give at least six months advance notice of a
possible job loss, citing reasons and supporting
information for the move. With this information,
workers and community leaders can renegotiate
with officials to possibly save jobs.
If a company still insists on moving to a
country where wage rates are less than half of

ours-onewithsubstandardworkingconditions
- then the American Jobs Protection Act would
require them to:
give employees four weeks of severance
pay for each year of service;
continue employee health care benefits for
18 months;
provide individual workers up to $10,000
over two years for retraining and relocation ex-
penses;
provide five years credit toward retirement
benefits;
cover individual workers retraining and
relocation expenses up toS10,000 over two years;
and
give states and localities a return of tax
abatements and economic incentives that had
been extended to them.
We need the American Jobs Protection Act
with or without NAFTA. We can talk and talk
with Mexico and Canada, but American jobs
continue to leave the country. Let's protect our
workers and their families and our hometowns
from further economic damage.
Rep. William Ford
D-Ypsilanti

Everyone should recycle
To the Daily:
Recently I have noticed many recyclable
"wastes" finding refuge in the trash bins of the
third floor architecture studios at the Art and
Architecture Building. As studentsstudying to be
professionals in a field where we are developing
the built environment and improving the way
people live and work, it is ironic that we can not
manage such an easy thing as recycling and has
receptacles strategically placed throughout the
studios. However, it seems that many of the
students (who, like myself, spend more time in
the studio than at home) do not understand the
importance of recycling, or simply don't care.
Nevertheless, I am not willing to give up on my
peers just yet for I don't believe that students are
intentionally throwing away recyclables. The
Art and Architecture building did recycle more
paper this year than last, yet resources are still
being uncollected. Student awareness involving
this issue must be raised, and I personally expect
to do more than just write this letter. I encourage
all University students to learn more about recy-
cling and how they can contribute, at school,
home and work.Contact Recycle UM, stop by the
city hall and pick up a brochure, or look me up,
justget involved.Buy recycled products, recycle
the products you buy.
Christian Unverzagt
College of Architecture and Urban Planning
Junior

University fails to understand the importance of undergraduate education, errs in Campbell case

To the Daily:
Upon hearing the tragic news that Prof. Rich-
ard Campbell has been denied the tenure, and the
recognition, he so richly deserves Ilam unable to
contain my response. Once again,this University
is choosing to devalue the needs and importance
ofitsmost valuable asset: UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS! As an undergraduate student I am
so frequently frustrated by the inexperience of
myT.A.'s,and my participation in Dr.Campbell's
Fall 92, Communication 103 course was exhila-
rating! This man is brilliant, intellectually stimu-
lating, inquisitive and above all, approachably
humane. I can only question, in bewilderment,
the audacious lack of sensibility founding the
University's decision in this matter!
How can you deprive -no rob - so many
student's searching minds and hungry hearts of
the magical journey Dr. Campbell leads toward
knowledgeandunderstanding? Inaseaofstrange
faces and an ocean of youth's uncertainty this

incredible instructor hasstood for me as a beacon
of direction, pouring rare light upon the darkness
of questions so many of my fellow students
grapple with. If only I could pierce you with the
legitimacy of what I'm saying as eloquently as
Dr. Campbell has inspired me, and hundreds of
undergraduates like me, with the wisdom of his
perspective. Perhaps it is because I'm older and
more experienced than your average undergrad
(I'm 25 years old) that I so fully comprehend the
gravity of your mistake. I've been on my own for
some time now, I've served with the U.S. Army
and felt the clenching caress of death and igno-
rance there, I've sat through classes where I felt
likemy mindwasstarving becausethis university
provided me with an insecure and undirected
(though well-intentioned) T.A. in return for my
money.
I deserve, as does every other undergraduate
inthisuniversityto beinstructedby professorsof
Dr. Campbell's caliber and yet I frequently am

not. How dare you chip away at the quality of my
expensive and hard-earned education with your
insensitive decision to deny Dr.RichardCampbell
tenure! I am frustrated and infuriated that you
have closed, or perhaps never even opened, your
eyes to the immeasurable benefit his presence
brings to the environment of this university!
So many tender spirits hesitate here for a
moment in their lives searching for answers,
seeking, hoping to figure out who they are and
where they are going. Their journey is so fragile,
so impressionable ... how can you allow any but
the very best to influencethe young minds youare
in charge of? How can you be so irresponsible as
toallowevenoneofyourvery best,Dr.Campbell,
to slip away?? Your decision disgraces and de-
values us all and I raise my voice to join the many
others urging you to reconsider.
Michel Phillips
LSA Junior

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan