Kevin Foley’s column, entitled “Needed: ‘Well-regulated militia’ — and guns”, which appeared 12-28-12, is indicative of the lengths to which the gun control advocates will go, in order to persuade you to abdicate your rights.
Foley erroneously, alludes that the founding fathers were so dense that they thought we would still be armed with muskets 200 years later; that the development of weaponry had reached its final stage, in 1783. His statement that the 2nd amendment must be examined in that context is so misguided as to make it almost laughable. Suppose we examined all the First Amendment in the same manner.
Since the founding fathers had no idea that we would have so many religions to choose from, we must limit our choice to those in existence in 1783. They number a half dozen or so. No Church of Christ, No Seventh Day Adventist, No Jehovah’s’ Witnesses, No Muslims, etc.
The founding fathers could not have possibly conceived of the mass communication media we currently enjoy. Therefore, freedom of the press must be in accordance with what they did know. Newspaper must, forthwith, be published on flatbed letter presses. No electrically powered presses can be used. Radio, television and the internet are no longer allowed. After all, they did not exist in 1783.
As far as freedom of speech is concerned, it must be practiced as it was in the days of the founding fathers. Orating from a soapbox in the town square is permissible. Spouting off on radio, television or the internet is not allowed. Written material must be produced by quill pen and ink. No mechanical copying may be done. Publication must be by the same means allowed for the production of newspapers.
That all sounds pretty silly. Right? No sillier than Foley’s insistence that we apply to the 2nd amendment all the restrictions of that which was known at the time.
Indeed the Constitution of the United States is a living document, the law of the land. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they put the 2nd amendment in there. They had just fought a .long and bitter war against a tyrannical government. They were also aware that any government could, at any time, become a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment is in place in case that happens. It is not for deer hunters and target shooters, but for those who would defend their liberty, even unto death.
Do not be misled by the tricks and ruses of the gun control advocates. Their ultimate goal, regardless of what they may profess, is to totally disarm the citizenry, thereby making us subjects, and not citizens.
Follow us on Twitter!
Second, I have had close relatives who were victims of violent crimes. It did not cause me to decide that the Constitution as invalid.
As long as all the gun control advocates can focus on is eroding the freedom for which many have given their lives, and refuse to even look at the possibility that there are are other factors to blame, besides inanimate objects incapable of any action on their own, and that ther are better measures to solve the problem. I will continue to oppose you.
Pete, you seem like a level-headed, mostly reasonable guy who probably has children. Ask yourself: Would you be adamantly defending assault weapons if one of your children or grandchildren had been a Newtown fatality?
The 2nd amendment has been challenged numerous times and has emerged unscathed each time. Why do you people continue to attack it?
I repeat, if you are going to modify our rights by your envisioned "frame of reference', then extend it to all our rights,. not just the one pertaining to guns.
Their frame of reference was single shot muskets and pistols. They had no clue what advances in weaponry were coming 200 years later, just like you and I have no clue what advancements in communications technology will be coming 200 years from now.
I would like to see you and other gun owners or enthusiasts make suggestions how we can stop the gun violence in the US other than arming everyone.
Gun owners have a habit of wrapping themselves up in the second amendment as if it were a cloak of God given righteousness. The second is far from righteous and it should be changed to fit the 21st century. The authors of the second had no idea what the gun technology was going to be in 230 years. What is the gun technology going to be like in another 230 years? Wallet sized nerve gas bombs, all protected by the second amendment.
What I said was they were not as stupid as you made them out to be. They knew that there would be continuing developements in weaponry.
Please do not put words in my mouth and then try to hold me responsible for what you invented.
And. once again, I do not excuse killing. All I do is point out that you are going after the wrong part of the problem.
Sorry, but it is still about rights and there is not a damned thing you can do to change that.
It has been demonstrated, time and again, that banning what you ignorantly refer to as 'assault weapons" is not going to stop mass killings, but your blinders won't allow you to see it.
Suggestion: If you don't have anything new to add, don't waste the reader's time in your Friday column. We've heard all your catch phrases. buzzwords and veiled insults before.
Once again, you stretch and strain to excuse the use of assault weapons to slaughter innocent people. This is no longer about your rights to stand up to a tyrannical government. It's about public safety.
More on that Friday.