Advertisement

Archive for Monday, April 29, 2013

Letter: Gun ‘rights’

April 29, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

We accept that the Second Amendment affirms opposition to foreign, invading forces. But personal guns are hardly required today for national defense or food.

“Self-defense” is trumpeted by the National Rifle Association and the gun manufacturers. The Kansas NRA promotes gun safety education programs. Good! Accidental discharges with fatal consequences occur too often.

I have frequently attended events at the Dole Institute — and recommend it to many. However, two assertions made at a recent event about “self-defense” should be challenged. One speaker said she wanted to confront “with a 50” any group of five or six big men charging into her house. Is a gang of five likely to “invade”? How likely is that? Who is likely to lose in the “battle”? My guess: any intruder(s) is prepared to shoot first and outshoot any opponent.

Opponents of gun registration and background checks contend it is an intrusion on our freedoms. Often cited: Hitler ordered registration and took away guns. First, Hitler did not remove all guns. (WWII vets told me of finding many guns in German homes.) Second, Hitler’s rise was facilitated by conditions after WWI. He gave Germans a ‘new’ spirit — dignity among nations, building Autobahns, reducing unemployment, and an impossible ‘dream.’

Registration of guns and owners is no greater threat to personal freedom than being required to register our automobiles and be certified to drive one. Driving or gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.

Some say: outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns. No!! We still will have our police, sheriffs, military, highway patrols, and National Guard.

Comments

jayhawklawrence 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Ronald Reagan sometimes wore a gun and knew how to use it. He opposed most gun legislation as ridiculous but he did support the Brady bill and believed it made good sense to do a background check before selling a hand gun. He also claimed to know many of the original signers of the Constitution.

The problem we have today is that we cannot trust the gun haters and there is no beloved leader as we had with Reagan in spite of his flaws. Most Americans loved Reagan.

0

Leslie Swearingen 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Agnostick, in my opinion you have the most cogent and compelling comment on the subject.

However, when it comes to mental health, isn't what goes on between a patient and their psychiatrist/psychologist confidential? So, how could there be a public database with the names and illnesses of those who have mental health problems? Who would make up this list? Would it be national or local?

0

Agnostick 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The term “well regulated” or any derivation of the term is nowhere in Article 1, Section 8.

It would appear that you are trying to be one of Agnostick’s “time travelers that claim to have been in Philadelphia in 1787”.


Agreed! I wasn't there... you weren't there... Nobody alive today was there.

Because things have changed so much, it makes sense that the language of the law be updated to better fit the language of our times. The proposed amendment I referenced earlier does just that, and includes a nice safeguard to decrease the risk of rapid, extreme changes. I have supported this idea for many years, almost since the first day I read it. At the moment, I cannot foresee that anything you or anyone else would write or say, would change my mind on this.

This is a stalemate between us--we must look to our fellow Americans to choose one side or the other.

It is my opinion that a law-abiding, psychologically sane individual in good health and in good standing with the law should be able to own and operate as many firearms as they wish. They should also be allowed a concealed-carry permit and to carry a weapon for their own personal defense, in this manner, in accordance with local laws and regulations.

Parents should be responsible for their children. If a child steals a parent's gun and takes the life of an innocent human, that parent or parents should be held responsible.

0

jafs 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The point about Article 1, Section 8 that's interesting is that it shows what the founders meant when they discussed a "well regulated militia", the phrase in the 2nd amendment.

1

75x55 11 months, 3 weeks ago

"First, Hitler did not remove all guns. (WWII vets told me of finding many guns in German homes.) ’"

Did those vets tell you how many guns they found in JEWISH homes? Oh, yeah, that's right...

3

grandnanny 11 months, 3 weeks ago

It's funny how everyone knows exactly what the Constitution means in regards to the 2nd Amendment, but no one knows what it says in Article 1, Section 8: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that people had guns when they were called upon to prtect the union from insurrections and invasions. No mention of protection from the government, but to provide for calling forth the Militia. Remember there was no standing army. Now, we have a standing army and the military provides the weapons.

1

Devon Kissinger 11 months, 3 weeks ago

And there is the Volley Gun...

Polish multiple gun from XVI-XVII century.png

Polish multiple gun from XVI-XVII century.png

Or for concealed carry...

Pistolet-trois-coups-p1030505.jpg

Pistolet-trois-coups-p1030505.jpg

I think that argument is invalid.

1

Steven Gaudreau 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Ok, u got me Voe. Try this one, What color was George Washington's white horse?

0

Devon Kissinger 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm tired of the argument that the Founders were only referring to muskets and flintlocks. Have any of you heard of the Puckle Gun, it was patented in 1718, I don't believe the Founders were so short sighted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

File:Puckle gun Photo.jpg

File:Puckle gun Photo.jpg

2

Steven Gaudreau 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Voevoda, Why did the founders put " In God We Trust" on our currency?

0

wyattearp2 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Remember when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns....And who will they keep using them against; YOU and ME..

1

Steve Crockett 11 months, 3 weeks ago

To those not in favor of background checks on line and at gun shows. Do you really think its OK for Alqueda, Zokar the terrorist or some crazy directly out of the looney bin at the State pen to be able to buy assault weapons with 100 round clips on line or at a gun show without even showing an ID? Thats just __!!!!!!!!!

1

oldbaldguy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

its not. you did not use your ar15 to kill 20+ innocents in a school. do not confuse history with current events. I respect you for your service in the sandpile. if you know what you are doing a handgun or shotgun will suffice for self-defense. i do agree shooting semi-auto is fun. the only semi-auto i have is my old model 1100.

0

Hugh_Jassle 11 months, 3 weeks ago

" It ended with defending freedom from terrorists."

Defending freedom or failed foreign policy?

0

oldbaldguy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

actually weapons were a problem for colonial militias. standardization for ammunition was a headache. after concord, lexington and breed's hill it was obvious that a standing army was needed. our army after 1776 was predominately young men who enlisted for terms of service not the gentlemen volunteers of myth and legend. militia was still used but was considered a liability. exceptions were king's mountain and the guerilla war in the south.

i quit the nra three years ago. they have lost prespective and i believe shill for the gun industry.

old combat vet

1

jayhawklawrence 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The only thing that Don accomplished with this letter was start to make me wonder if I should finally join the NRA.

6

Brock Masters 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but it is truly disheartening to read uninformed comments. I do not understand how someone can base their argument and opinion on the notion that gun ownership is not a right but just a privilege

People need to take the time to educate themselves on important topics.

6

oldbaldguy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

private citizens do not need military style weapons. they are fun to shoot. i own a lot of firearms. i do not own an m4 or a 50 cal barrett. the militia did not defeat the british. george washington and the trained continental army did.

0

fmrl 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The question to me is why the Federal government and Ministry of Propaganda (msm) is so intent on disarming the citizenry. Why has DHS bought up almost two billion rounds of ammo and refused to explain why? All of the mechanisms are in place to institute a police state, including Executive Orders that allow for the suspension of constitutional government. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to affirm our God given right to protect ourselves from tyranny and the threat of tyranny now is greatest from our own government.

2

Jarhead1982 11 months, 3 weeks ago

We see at this website all the crime committed by the only ones, the police, of murder, rape, assault, theft, drug dealing, etc, etc, etc and amazingly they have a violent crime rate near equal that of the national average in 2011, which was 383.6 per 100k people.

We see between Sept 2012 & Mar 2013, 1,180 crimes committed by police near 70 per week documented, and we all know how police NEVER get special considerations now dont we!

http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/11/ http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/12/ http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/13/ http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/14/ http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/15/ http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/16/ http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/17/ http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/18/ http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/19/ http://www.policemisconduct.net/page/20/

Since our own government recognizes that over 80% of all violent crimes are committed by career criminals and gang members, we must assume the police are infiltrated by career criminals & gang members, otherwise, their crime rate should be 20% of national average!

Why would any sane person trust career criminals & gang members with their safety?

I mean after all there are dozens of court rulings clearly stating police are not legally liable to protect the individual civilian.

Then of course they only manage to solve on avg. 8.06% of all violent crimes committed each year!

But hey, dont let facts get in the way of your anti gun fantasies eh Don Conrad, LOL, get a clue!

1

Agnostick 11 months, 3 weeks ago


A proposed amendment

Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment — an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill — this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation. Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.


SOURCE: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html#amend

1

Jarhead1982 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Cars are registered for tax purposes, not safety!

Simply amazing, checking through the latest NHTSA Traffic safety data and see that over a 10 year span, the number of deaths by drunk driving is 28% lower.

But when review of the total data for over all deaths shows a 27.4% reduction in overall deaths.

So having seen a few so called enlightened people stating how regulating the automobiles reduced deaths, the fact is the punishment of those caught drunk driving along with stiffer fines and jail time which actually target and punish those committing the crime, have resulted in the reduction within 1%, LOL.

The number of miles driven by any driver during the same time frame is only 2% less

Isn't amazing how if one actually punishes those responsible how a societal problem can be reduced!

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811700.pdf

1

Dont_Tread_On_Me 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Please do not forget that at the time, "well regulated" meant well provisioned/properly functioning. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the populace would have a check and balance against a domestic tyrannical government. Remember, they wrote our Constitution to proctect their rights from their tyrannical government (Great Britian), not a foreign entity.

4

Karl_Hungus 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Are our cars not already listed in a national database...VIN numbers and all? The State knows who we are through our cars and isn't a car a tool much like a gun is, so what is the problem with registering them?

Trust me, if Obama wanted you dead, you would be dead already...he has those evil Bush drones and nuclear missiles and your pea (pee) shooter ain't going to match those...

0

Steven Gaudreau 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Pass all the laws you want, it will do nothing to stop criminals from behaving like criminals.
How many laws did the bombers is Massachusetts break? They broke a gun law in Massachusetts, one must have a license to carry a firearm, which neither had. They made an illegal bomb, committed murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. These two broke every law in the book. Why would anyone in their right mind think that putting up a silly roadblock like background checks is going to stop individuals who plot to commit mass murder? Buying a gun illegally now is easy. Can you imagine how much easier it will become when there is a market 1000x larger?
Less then 1% of guns used to commit a crime were purchased at a gun show according to a pol taken of 2000 inmates. The largest number of guns were obtained through family and friends, I believe it was 38%. Buying guns on the black market was the number 2 answer. Criminals now are not buying the majority of their guns through current legal channels. Why would new laws change how criminals get guns when they already do not use the system in place? Like I stated, pass as many laws as you want, I could care less. These attacks will not stop until our govt addresses why these people are killing, not their method of killing.

3

JohnBrown 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I disagree with the LTE. But the key phrase in the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated militia..".

So does the "regulating"?

Given that this is an amendment to the Constitution, it obviously refers to the United States government doing the "regulating". By definition, any "regulating" the government wants to do should not be objectionable.

As for the "right to bear arms.." part, it's obvious that the writers of the 2nd Amendment had in mind muskets and flintlock pistols. Re-interpreting the 2nd Amendment to mean 50 cal sniper rifles with scopes, m79 grenade launchers, hand grenades, or automatic rifles is simply the view of liberal activist judges and their ilk.

JohnBrown

1

gphawk89 11 months, 3 weeks ago

"We still will have our police, sheriffs, military, highway patrols, and National Guard." This is way overused but appropriate: "When seconds count, help is only minutes away."

7

Jackie Jackasserson 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The sentence above doesn't appear to tell me that individuals have a right to own a gun, just that free states have a right to regulate a group of arms bearing people into a militia.

4

bandito 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Owning a gun not a right? That's why it's found in the "Bill of Rights"! Besides ever read the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights? Any right not expressly given to the government was reserved by states and the people! (See 9th and 10th Amendments) Don, a basic 8th course on the Constitution teaches you that! You must have been asleep during that lesson. Don't think any of those things that you mention won't or can't happen again? Those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it!

8

Benjamin Roberts 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Donny - you lost it at your first sentence, "We accept that the Second Amendment affirms opposition to foreign, invading forces."

This amendment was about 1) stopping an oppressive federal government, 2) personal rights of each state's 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."

8

Commenting has been disabled for this item.