Kevin Foley, put it all into context, or none
by Pete_Borden
 Politics
January 03, 2013 01:27 PM | 1811 views | 10 10 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

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.

 

Comments
(10)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Pete Borden
|
January 07, 2013
Kevin, first of lal I would ask that you document your inference that virtually every police chief and and public safety official has attacked the 2nd amendment.

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.

Kevin Foley
|
January 06, 2013
Pete, by "you people," are you referring also to virtually every police chief and public safety official (see my nearby column)?

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?
Pete Borden
|
January 04, 2013
Kevin, regardless of their frame of refernce,or their knowledge or lack of same on weapos techology advances, they put no restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. nor did they put a time limuit, or an expiration date on the 2dn Amendment.

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.
Lib in Cobb
|
January 04, 2013
Three NYC Police Officers were shot and wounded today. NY has very strict gun control laws. How could this happen? CT has very strict gun control laws how could the Newton massacre happen? Could it be that the current gun control laws don't work. Across the nation most likely 30 people were killed today where the weapon used was a gun. The NRA will say more laws won't work. What will?
Kevin Foley
|
January 04, 2013
Pete, I maintain that, in their most horrific dreams, the Founders could never imagine the killing machines you can buy in any gun store. Moreover, they could not envision a single madman could slaughter 26 people in less then 5 minutes with those weapons.

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.

Lib in Cobb
|
January 04, 2013
Pete: No mass murder or a singular murder was ever accomplished with the freedom of religion as the weapon of choice, the same thing can be said for the freedom of speech. It is a significant stretch for you to equate the second to any other freedoms which we hold close. No deer hunter needs a gun which can spray the great outdoors with 100 rounds or more per minute, you have agreed with this thought previously. How many high powered semi auto hand guns or assault rifles does one need to feel protected in their home or business? Do we really need these testosterone fueled militias running through the woods playing war on weekends? These militias are armed to the teeth with these assault rifles. The only people who think they need a militia are those groups who wish to start a civil war because a man named Barack Hussein Obama dared to become president. If you agree that this is about safety, they why are you and other gun enthusiasts so opposed to safety for our school children or people who are in any other public place, where safety is now a point of concern? The gun control laws of this nation need to be changed, the states should not have the ability to write their own laws concerning guns, we have that now and it doesn't work. Armed guards in all the schools will never happen, nor will the confiscation of all guns in the US. What should happen is very strict federal laws which will protect us from those who can get guns and do us harm. We should not be concerned to go to the movies or go to class on a college campus or elementary school or to a political rally in Tucson. Arming all citizens is not meant to be, I want to see gun ownership limited not opened up like an all you can eat buffet.

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.
Lib in Cobb
|
January 04, 2013
@DA: The gun does matter. If no rapid fire weapons aka, assault weapons,were permitted in the hands of private citizens and only single shot pistols and rifles were permitted, then any person would not have the ability to kill 20 children and six adults in a school.
Pete Borden
|
January 03, 2013
Kevin, I did not say that they knew the weaponry we would have today,.

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.
Devlin Adams
|
January 03, 2013
Foley, you started the mind reading thing with your ludicrous column. All Borden did was point out how utterly asinine it was.

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.
Kevin Foley
|
January 03, 2013
So the Founders knew we would someday have high powered semi and full auto weapons, high powered ammo, and high capacity clips? Pete, did you conduct a séance and have a talk with John Adams and Ben Franklin?

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.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides