In reply to John K. Walker’s letter concerning the Second Amendment.
Yes, John, many of us have read the Bill of Rights and we really do understand the Second Amendment and its reference to a well regulated militia. Just how do you think this militia will be armed?
We are not talking about the National Guard or a permanently organized military type force. It relates to the way we arrived at the point where the Bill of Rights was created. By every citizen fighting for their and our freedom with their own weapons.
Plus, however you want to read that Second Amendment sentence, you cannot dismiss the wording that says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” End of story.
Ed Jones
Mesa
Cincinnatus posted at 7:47 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.
It does say "well-regulated militia". Where's the regulation?
Poorman posted at 8:55 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.
Every citizen can fight with their own weapons,under the assumption our good ole government hasn't taken them from us one way or another.
Deddzone posted at 9:28 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.
I have a suggestion. A "well-regulated miltia" could be someone who goes through an extensive background check and submits to a training program before being handed a gun.
I own guns and I would do this very thing. FIrst I know I would pass an extensive background check and I would have no problem with a training program.
The NRA missed a massive chance to be part of this. I think the regulation is coming. And some gun owners will not be happy--but hey, it's in the Constitution to be "well-regulated".
Pat Mytush posted at 10:08 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.
By Ed's logic an atom bomb or a dirty bomb would be fine and dandy...even a nuclear warhead. What is the matter with you Mr. Jones?
Cerulean posted at 12:47 pm on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.
It is, in my opinion, interesting to discover that similar debates as the one Mr. Jones brings today concerning guns, were discussed by individuals within the states that ratified the Constitution. That may be why there is confusion as to the intent of the second amendment. The founders did not necessarily agree on the definition of ‘militia’. Reading the thoughts of someone like Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, one might conclude that the 2nd amendment has little to do with ‘militia’ and more to do with the right of people to keep and bear arms. “End of story.”
Unfortunately, for Mr. Jones that is not the end of the story.
See: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy.html
Read Article One of the Constitution.
Notice that within the Enumerated powers of Congress is a provision to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts; As well as the power to organize the ‘Militia’.
onerebel posted at 3:42 pm on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.
All one has to do is look at some of the quotes from the founders;
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
Thomas Jefferson
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
George Washington
"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation."
-- James Madison
Liberals will do their best to spin it, but no sale here!
mikedurham posted at 7:23 am on Tue, Dec 25, 2012.
Good. Another second amendment discussion devolves into fightin' and killin' and cowardin' and .... spittin' and ... everything this country wasn't built on in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ptoooeee. Now pass the jug.
Cincinnatus posted at 8:34 am on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
"..the general More Guns approach to social ills — is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian “war of every man against every man” in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor for now — but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.
Whatever lack of open violence may be procured by this method (it) is not peace or civil order, but rather a standoff, a Cold War maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Moreover, the person who wishes to live this way, to maintain order at universal gunpoint, has an absolute trust in his own ability to use weapons wisely and well: he never for a moment asks whether he can be trusted with a gun. Of course he can! (But in literature we call this hubris)."
The American Conservative, December 17, 2012
Guns, Risk and Safety