Ginsburg was a liberal politician disguised as a judge

To the editor:

As a Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg failed to distinguish between her previous role as general counsel to the ACLU and her role as a judge.

Ginsburg went rogue regarding her judicial duties by imposing her own beliefs in the culture war upon the Constitution and acts of Congress. She was an uncompromising supporter of abortion despite the fact that abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. She supported partial-birth abortion, joining the majority in striking down Nebraska’s ban on the grisly procedure and dissenting when the Supreme Court later upheld a federal ban.

But the Second Amendment apparently did not appear in Justice Ginsburg’s Constitution. She dissented from the Court’s ruling that the amendment protects a constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense within the home.

Justice Ginsburg joined the majority in mandating gay marriage upon the states, and rewriting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Ginsburg’s most famous dissenting opinion came in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber (2007) and is another example of her failure to understand the proper role of a Supreme Court justice. The majority dismissed Ledbetter’s equal-pay lawsuit because she had filed it after the 180-day deadline set by Congress. In her dissent, Ginsburg argued that the Court should ignore the will of Congress. What is most interesting here is that the Court did its job in following the mandate of Congress, and then Congress did its job by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that scrapped the 180-day deadline.

The Notorious RBG was a liberal politician disguised as a Supreme Court justice. She and he allies have turned the Court into a permanently sitting constitutional convention and super-legislature that changes the law at their whim.

Voorhees Dunn, Ph.D.

Madison

The hypocrisy of anti-Second Amendment veterans

SOME VETERANS in politics and media have taken it upon themselves to rescue Americans from the “dangers” of firearms, specifically the AR-15.

Their contention is that these are “weapons of war” and therefore unfit for civilian use. Pat Ryan, an Iraq War veteran who had run for Congress in New York’s 19th district, ran a campaign ad in 2018 expressing his desire to “get rid of assault rifles.” In the wake of the Orlando shooting, Congressman Seth Moulton, a former Marine officer, stated on Twitter that “I know assault rifles. I carried one in Iraq. They have no place on America’s streets.”

As a Marine trained on the use of numerous military-grade weapons, Seth and others should know better.

The original definition of “assault rifle” from a 1970 Army Field Manual (FSTC-CW-07-03-70) has been re-purposed by the anti-gun movement to nebulously define firearms they believe civilians should not own. One of the four requirements for the field manual’s definition of an assault rifle is a “select-fire” option (i.e. you can toggle settings between single shot and fully automatic or burst). The fact that the AR-15 currently sold to civilians in America only has a single fire option means it does not meet their definition of an assault rifle. And, just in case anyone’s wondering, the “AR” in AR-15 stands for “Armalite Rifle” not “Assault Rifle.”

But details like these don’t matter to the gun control lobby, and the issue with these anti-gun veterans is that they believe they know better than the rest of us. They tout their combat experience with these “weapons of war,” demanding that we trust their message and heed their warning.

The irony is either they do not know what they are talking about, or, worse, they have suppressed that knowledge in order to appease the politics of the time. At its core, this issue is less about civilian ownership of AR-15s and more about the elitist mentality of any veteran who believes civilians are incapable or irresponsible when it comes to firearms.

As a Marine Corps officer, I carried the same M4 in Iraq that Seth Moulton did. During my time in Iraq, my Marines investigated an officer who had experienced a “negligent discharge,” where he almost accidentally shot and killed another Marine.

In Iraq, I also witnessed a court martial trial for one of my Marines who had threatened to shoot an NCO in his chain-of-command. Tragically, we also saw a Marine who used his rifle to take his own life.

Human error and human factors affect members of the military just as much as civilians. Should we prevent veterans from owning firearms because they have a higher-than-average rate of suicide compared to the rest of the U.S. population?

At the end of the day, if a person is responsible and knowledgeable about the firearms they own, what difference does it make if he/she is veteran or civilian?

Governor Chris Sununu has done a great job stemming the tide of anti-gun legislation coming through the New Hampshire Legislature. Unfortunately, anti-gun veterans threaten to tip the scales of the discussion in favor of more gun control because they claim to know better than the rest of us.

Most veterans I know do not want to outlaw AR-15s or limit civilian firearm ownership and it is time for the silent majority of pro-Second Amendment veterans to speak their minds, especially in an election year.

If we fail to do so, we are foregoing a responsibility to speak out against the same injustices we joined the military to defend against. And sadly, this issue extends beyond just the discussion of Second Amendment rights.

The “I-know-better-than-the-average-civilian” mentality has become the de facto stance of the corrupt and powerful in our government. Look no further than the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, where a handful of rogue officials sought to undo the will of the people.

Mike Judge lives in Mason.

 

Readers respond: Gun rights aren’t ‘so-called’

A recent letter writer believes Americans’ “so-called ‘gun rights’ ” should be included in the national conversation on violence. (“Include gun control in the conversation,” Aug. 3). The right of Americans to own and carry guns is far from “so-called.” They are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and in Oregon’s Constitution and have been recognized and upheld by the Supreme Court with the Heller decision in 2008.

As of this writing, Portland has recorded its deadliest month in the past 30 years (“Portland police record highest number of death investigations in single month in more than three decades,” July 30). Stabbings, shootings, assaults and home invasions are a regular occurrence. There is a call for law enforcement to be defunded, and ineffectual leaders have hobbled the police bureau for their own political gain. Gun sales are at an all-time high, background checks take many days instead of several minutes, and ammunition is in short supply. This is a result of concerned Americans wishing to protect themselves from violent criminals when local governments refuse to.

One can be displeased by the fact that Americans enjoy a unique right to self-preservation, but to deny the Second Amendment and falsely claim the right to keep and bear arms as “so-called” is intellectually dishonest. Law-abiding gun owners have every right to arm themselves. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers added no provisions in the Bill of Rights protecting the timid from never encountering things that make them uncomfortable or that offend delicate sensibilities.

Norwood Paladin, Portland

Letter to the editor | Don’t be fooled by changes in language

Language can be a powerful but cunning tool. Change words slightly and presto, the context changes beneath one’s feet.

For example, have you noticed how the language regarding guns has evolved recently? It’s no longer “gun control”; instead it’s “gun safety.” What a clever shift. No one can object to gun safety, right? It’s just plain reasonable. If you criticize it, you must be one of those crazy gun nuts.

The latest language shift is the characterization of “open carry” of firearms as a “loophole.” Obviously, if the Founding Fathers had any idea that citizens might run around carrying firearms openly, they would have forbidden it. It’s perfectly clear to “reasonable” people that “open carry” is a loophole they forgot to close. But never fear, we can make this minor fix to the Second Amendment for the “safety” of all.

Of course, the open carrying of firearms is not a loophole in the Constitution. At the time, virtually all firearms were carried openly. It wasn’t possible to carry them any other way. It wasn’t until firearms became compact enough to conceal that concealed carry became an issue. Consequently, laws were drafted to require permits to ensure that the scary person next to you couldn’t be carrying a hidden firearm unless properly screened and trained. (We can debate the constitutionality of such regulations another time.)

My point is, we need to read between the lines to avoid the snares set by clever shifts in language.

Mark Sherbine- Portage

Self-defense is not immoral, and neither is arming oneself

In his response to Jeff Jacoby’s recent column about rising gun ownership among Blacks (”Must self-preservation be the top priority?” Letters, June 29), Remy Trahant praises 1960s civil rights protesters for their willingness to die for a cause. He contrasts them with present-day gun owners, who selfishly indulge “the urge to protect [their] own life and family and property and to heck with everyone else.”

I wonder what Trahant believes “everyone else” loses when a person acts to protect their family or property. Other than the criminal, I can’t think of anyone who suffers when a crime is prevented.

The morality of self-defense probably isn’t a hot topic in the cities still smoldering from riots, and the potential need for self-defense is obvious where city governments refused to protect their own citizens. No one should be surprised that people are arming themselves in this environment. Their logic is impeccable.

 

Why , yes. Yes I do have an answer for you, Karen.
Let me inform your ignorance, as the 9th amendment reads thusly:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This one, conflating the Declaration of Independence’s statement of certain unalienable rights being ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ as being in the Bill of Rights, still is so ignorant she can’t even remember to quote them correctly.

This is the willful ignorance, informed only by propaganda, we should be concerned about: That in today’s time of the internet where an answer to “What’s in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence” can be summoned at the push of a button or two, but she can’t be bothered to look it up.

Does she really care, or is she just too stupid to want to learn?


Letter: All amendments matter, not just the 2nd Amendment

To the Editor:

During this prolonged period of social distancing, I find myself spending far too much time mulling over questions of which I have yet to provide answers. Like a pesky mosquito, my pondering persists.

Perhaps someone much wiser might provide answers that could ease my angst:………….

• Why is the Second Amendment the single go-to amendment for the assault weapon-toting people concerned that gun regulations take away their constitutional rights? Why not take a moment to read a bit from the Ninth Amendment advocating for my constitutional right provided by our government for “…obtaining happiness and safety”? I am finding it difficult to feel any sense of safety knowing someone could be packing heat at my grocery store, movie theater or local bars. Any answer for me?………….

Certain there are answers to my questions but not so certain there will be any change.

Joan Skiba

 

Rethinking Hoosier ‘deplorables’

Coming from the Bronx, I was acquainted with riding the subway or bus or navigating the busy and often treacherous streets of New York.

There I learned to survive in the city, but I knew nothing of hunting, fishing or surviving in nature. Coastal elites have disdain for those schooled in such things.

They assume that food, water and other necessities and amenities just appear. They lack awareness of the complex grids, structures and platforms that maintain their comforts. Or the sources of the electricity that powers their computers and air-conditioning, or of the gasoline that fuels their cars.

They do not appreciate those who make these daily, secular miracles possible, the commonplace wonders of modern, electronic civilization.

But my neighbors in Indiana hunt. They can survive in the forest, hills, lakes and rivers here. They understand the world of nature, its vicissitudes and even barbarism.

Appreciating its transcendent beauty and cadences, they also accept its fierce cruelties. They do not worship nature; they seek reconciliation with it that they may endure and protect their loved ones. They admire the natural world, its towering majesty and microscopic complexity, but they do not hold it on a pedestal, pristine, viewed from a distance.

Theirs is a realistic appraisal of nature and what is required to survive.

Many Hoosiers preserve food. Some steam or pressure can. Or dehydrate, pickle, freeze-dry, smoke, or salt items. Knowing how to farm, they cope with caterpillars, aphids, and cutworms; and guard against hedgehogs, fungi and lack of rain.

Some have gas tanks and generators. They have water filters, propane stoves, purifying tablets, first-aid kits, pick-up trucks, drills, hammers and wrenches. They can repair a car, a machine, or a leaking pipe. And yes, they also know how to install Wi-Fi, use computers, navigate the internet, and operate smartphones.

They have guns and ammunition. Well-trained, many are veterans, serving in the national guard or law enforcement, and are defenders of the Second Amendment. They have shotguns, bolt-action rifles, AR-10s, and other semi-automatics. They own handguns and an array of shells, including expanding, home-defense rounds.

Many have night vision, tree stands, bows, arrows, camouflage, trail cameras, scents, GPS devices and two-way radios. They hunt duck, quail and deer. Floating down a river or walking the fields, they recognize the rhythms of the animals they track and fish, their migration and trail patterns, all driven by the weather, mating seasons and food sources.

In a pandemic, a time of plague, with the economy crumbling, hospitals closing, streets emptied of life, perhaps the rootless cosmopolitans may want to reconsider their contempt.

What is certain is that our elites, in the media, academia, and elsewhere, cloistered in liberal ghettos, among fellow members of the chattering class, would not survive without the welders, assembly line workers and equipment operators, those whom they refer to as hicks, rubes and deplorables who cling to their guns and Bibles.

Maybe they should thank them.

Dr. Richard Moss is a surgeon practicing in Jasper. Contact him at richardmossmd.com or Richard Moss, M.D. on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Guns and behavior

Dear elected representative, I am Angie from TC High and we are learning more about guns and school shootings and speaking our opinions about it and I guess we are now writing to you. So I gotta start somewhere.

This gun situation needs to be brought up more in schools, anywhere it can influence a person to not do this type of thing. I remember in middle school we talked a lot about opioids and discussed almost every day. And have checkups on kids psychologically and do more studies to see the red flags for this behavior.

But don’t take away guns. It’s not the guns killing people; it’s the people killing people. The Second Amendment says we have a right to keep and bear arms so you can’t really take away our guns. Help the people who are thinking of doing this thing. We have to keep America safe if we want to have better lives and a better future.

Angie Maddasion

Traverse City

Common-sense gun control?

Editor:

As a marginally fair-minded person, I sometimes place myself in the shoes of others to better understand their thought process. Lately, I’ve been thinking about gun control and how other people’s shoes perceive various solutions:

1. There can’t be guns in “gun-free zones.” When an armed criminal with mayhem in mind sees one of these signs, they naturally sigh “Aw, shucks” and slink back to the basement to re-examine their lives. It follows that home defense is best ensured by posting “Gun-Free Zone” signs in one’s yard, and perhaps on the front door. When you advertise that your family is completely unarmed, imagine all the nice new friends who’ll come to visit.

2. Arming teachers will make those young punks think twice. Nobody gets more annoyed at school shooters than teachers, and discipline is part of their job. (What do the sheriff’s “resource officers” know about kids, anyway?) So what makes better sense than strapping a .38 to the shop teacher’s hip and sending him swaggering forth to clean up Dodge City? Those smartypants students will think twice before joining running gun-battles in the school hallways against a platoon of sharpshooting French teachers! Plus, those quick-draw contests in the teachers’ lounge will be a fun break from second-period civics classes (bor-r-ring!)

3. If insane gun-toting gunmen didn’t have guns, they wouldn’t use guns to shoot people, insanely, with their guns. This is the sort of analytical logic that I really go for. Still, I’d take it a step further and outlaw the knives, including machetes, Swiss Army knives and so-called “butter” knives. Candlesticks and frozen pork loins are also lethal weapons, as are “assault anvils” that can be dropped from tall buildings onto pedestrians’ heads. People don’t kill people, inanimate objects kill people! If these Second Amendment gun nuts are so fired up about “rights,” let’s not dismiss the constitutional right of cognitively disadvantaged nonconformists to follow their impetuous dreams.

Thanks for your attention. Gotta go, “Live PD” is about to start.

David Christovich,

Woodstock

 

Saying gun rights only applies to a militia is like saying free speech only applies while in the process of petitioning the government

A letter was published titled “Enact gun control without repealing the Second Amendment” (Mercurynews.com, Jan. 5) implying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was subject to being within a “well-regulated militia.”

Good thing this letter-writer isn’t a lawyer. If that were the case, your right to freedom of speech is only protected while in the process of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

Stay in your lane, and out of constitutional law.

Neil Stokes
Redwood City

 

Second Amendment sanctuaries reflect the will of people who value the Constitution

As leftist politicians continue to threaten the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, citizens are standing up for themselves.

Dozens of counties in California, Colorado, Illinois, Rhode Island, Texas and elsewhere have voted to become “Second Amendment Sanctuaries,” declaring that sheriffs in those counties will not enforce gun-control legislation that violates the Constitution.

In New Mexico, 29 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs signed a resolution earlier this year opposing sweeping gun-control bills proposed in the state legislature. Most recently, Virginia made headlines as more than 40 counties joined the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that is sweeping the nation.

A February NPR article noted that “professional discretion is a constant feature of policing,” as law enforcement officers do not have the time nor the resources to enforce every single law every time one is broken. It is customary for police to decide which laws are a priority and whether pursuing lawbreakers to the full extent of the law is worthwhile. In the case of extreme gun laws, sheriffs have expressed several concerns: the laws are ineffective and unenforceable, they put police officers at increased risk, and they infringe on the Second Amendment rights enshrined by the Constitution.

“(Senate Bill 8, a background check bill) … does nothing to protect citizens and is unenforceable,” the New Mexico Sheriffs Association wrote in a letter earlier this year. “We also oppose House Bill 83 (a red flag gun-confiscation law), as it violates due process and puts law enforcement in a more dangerous situation and does nothing to protect citizens. This bill could disarm the very people trying to defend their lives and personal property.”

There is concern that the sanctuaries undermine the will of the people (though such concern was notably not expressed when counties declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants); however, sheriffs are elected officials. Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County, who has vowed not to enforce Washington state’s Initiative 1639 — a package of gun-control laws — told NPR, “As an elected sheriff and a constitutional sheriff, I believe it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and, more specifically, violates the Washington state Constitution.”

In an interview with Reuters, Songer expressed the attitude prevailing among Second Amendment sanctuary sheriffs: “Unfortunately for the governor and the attorney general, they’re not my boss,” Songer said. “My only boss is the people that elected me to office.”

These sanctuary resolutions are the last resort for voters in rural areas whose lifestyles and views are not represented by urban voters and lawmakers. As Reuters reports, the sanctuary movement “is exposing the rift between rural and urban America as much as the one between the Republican and Democratic parties, as small, conservative counties push back against statewide edicts passed by big-city politicians.”

Zach Fort, president of the New Mexico Sport Shooting Association, told Gunpowder Magazine (of which, full disclosure, I am the editor), “There’s a lot of pessimism shared by those who want to protect their gun rights right now. A lot of people think they’re being railroaded and not being listened to.”

New Mexico Sheriffs Association President Tony Mace expressed a similar frustration, “When this legislation is drafted every session, we are not invited to the table,” he told Gunpowder Magazine. “Our voices are falling on deaf ears. They’re not giving our point of view any attention at all. … If they’re not going to listen to us, then we are going to use their tactics against them. I, like the other sheriffs, was elected to protect our citizens’ constitutional rights. And that’s exactly what we plan to do.”

In sum, Second Amendment sanctuaries are sheriff-led movements. Sheriffs are elected by the people of the counties they oversee, and if the people agree with sheriffs that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, then Second Amendment Sanctuaries are the supreme fulfillment of the rights and freedoms the Constitution protects.

Alarming poll on First Amendment justifies zealous defense of the Second

Retired Circuit Justice Kozinski once said:
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.”

It seems that “….silences those who protest.” is not so  ‘improbable’ these days, is it?

A poll conducted by Caravan Surveys for the Campaign for Free Speech revealed alarming support among Americans for rewriting the First Amendment and underscores the danger of putting constitutionally-protected fundamental rights up to a public vote.

According to the survey, “some 51 percent of people in the US believe that the (First) amendment…should be updated to reflect the cultural norms of today.” The poll of 1,004 respondents also revealed that 48 percent believe “hate speech,” while not defined, should be illegal and half of the people think punishment should include possible imprisonment or fines. A whopping 57 percent of poll respondents think the government should be able to penalize news agencies for publishing “content that is biased, inflammatory, or false.”

The poll results have frightening ramifications for our free speech and free press rights. The fact that a majority of people now seem to be rethinking our freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights should be troubling to all Americans.

What is equally troubling is the failure of the establishment media to see the parallels between this sudden attack on the First Amendment and the ongoing crusade against the Second Amendment.

As authors of the recently-released book “Good Guys with Guns,” we recognize there are good journalists with keyboards and bad journalists with keyboards. Good ones should not be penalized for the misbehavior of the bad ones. The same principle must apply to how we treat the rights of more than 100 million American gun owners who have never harmed anyone or committed any crime, yet how many editorial pages have repeatedly demanded more restrictions on the Second Amendment because some people break the law?

When talking about constitutionally-enumerated rights, great care must be taken to separate rights from privileges. For too many years, far too many people in the media have treated the Second Amendment as a privilege to be heavily regulated. The Campaign for Free Speech poll puts such corrosive thinking in its proper perspective.

Simply, you cannot advocate restrictions or abolition of your neighbors’ rights, which you don’t support, without putting your own rights at risk. With the release of these new survey results, that vulture has come home to roost.

Allow our teachers to carry firearms

DEAR EDITOR:

We are fully aware of the growing concern for school safety against shootings. Schools are becoming one of the most targeted areas due to being gun-free zones. No one on the property is allowed to carry a firearm, regardless of their training except the police officer who sits at the front desk. One person is in charge to cover and protect the entire school against a shooter that can be anywhere in the building.

A change is needed, and it starts with who may or may not be allowed to carry a firearm.

Teachers throughout the school should be allowed the right to carry a firearm for protection of themselves and, more importantly, the students in their class. This right needs to involve detailed training, extensive background checks and also psychiatric testing to confirm these individuals are suitable for that responsibility.

Now, this should not be mandatory, but it certainly should be allowed for the protection and safety of our children. These mentally insane individuals are targeting schools because they have to get past one person at the front door, and then the devastation is up to them. With teachers carrying guns, the shooter will be able to be apprehended much sooner if a gun is pointed back at them and save a lot of innocent lives.

According to the National Rifle Association, there are over 95 percent less shootings in gun-friendly zones than gun-free zones. This information persuaded lawmakers in Florida to make it legal for a teacher to carry a firearm at school. Coupled with testing previously stated in this letter, teachers having the right to carry firearms is a very strong form of protection and definitely can be regulated and implemented in schools in this area.

RYAN KOWALIK

Austintown

Microchip guns to prevent mass shootings

My last OIC (Officer In Command) of my section often used a simple phrase to express his surprised disbelief that someone could be that stupid:
“You can’t make this stuff up.”

With the anniversary of the devastating Borderline shooting upon our community, I’d like to share the following letter I sent to Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin last November, to which I received no response.

“My name is Jim Dumond and I am a 58-year resident of the Conejo Valley. In response to the shootings at Borderline Bar and Grill, I came up with a compromise that I believe could go a long way toward eliminating our country’s mass shootings.

I believe that both gun and anti-gun advocates will see this as a positive step forward. This gives both groups the right to protect their homes, and gives the citizens peace of mind from individuals, who, like Ian David Long, intend to cause others harm.

1. Owning a weapon (gun), would still require the existing background checks, as required by law.

2. To use a purchased weapon, one would be required to register the weapon online, via a home Wi-Fi type system. The weapon would be embedded with a microchip and would be unusable until registration is complete and authorities grant activation.

This activation would require GPS of the owner’s home and simultaneous location of the weapon. Activation could not be completed at separate times, nor at different locations. Creating a permanent record/registration of owner and location needed for the lawful usage of the weapon.

3. The weapon would be given a usage radius of, say, 1,000 feet from the home Wi-Fi system. If the weapon is taken beyond this point, the weapon would no longer be usable and immediately disabled, until it is brought back into the given parameters.

4. The weapon would also have a safety fault system for tampering. If tampered with, the weapon would become useless and again disabled.

To protect our rights to bear arms, and to protect our families from those who seek to harm others are what we can do as U.S. citizens.

I understand you have a limited schedule for such matters, but I do believe this is a viable solution to our state and country’s worsening mass shooting issues. Thank you in advance for listening.” Jim Dumond Thousand Oaks

Keeping one’s eyes and ears open (intelligence gathering) for the crap-for-brains anti-gun/anti-civil rights BS in the media is a good habit.

The Indiana Daily Student (IDS) is an independent, student-run newspaper that has been published for the community of Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, so we see the quality of education the college students are getting these days. i.e. Leftist claptrap.

This is nothing more than a re-iteration of a racist smear on the people of the U.S. who choose to exercise a enumerated right.
Just to make it easy for everyone to send this fallacious letter to the trashcan:

Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights where “the right of the people” is used it is expounding on an individual right as ruled by the Federal courts.

That that author attempts to deny that the Second Amendments doesn’t protect an individual right when it has that exact terminology used is more than risible, it’s blatant redefinition and mendacity.
If true it would mean those other ‘rights of the people’, already defined as individual rights aren’t either.

Piffle.

the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 1

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment 4.

One point to make clear..No amendment in the Bill of Rights gives the U.S. citizenry anything, The document was demanded by “…the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” as a restriction on government. A “these are ‘hands off’ to you” .

The only ‘threat’ gun ownership poses is to those people- and their lackeys as seen here – who seek power and control over the free people of the U.S. That’s why you see these types of deceptive letters being posted.

It is necessary to understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment

The interpretation of the Second Amendment commonly accepted by many Americans is that the right to bear arms is necessary to maintain freedom against a tyrannical government. However, when looking back at the historical context of why the amendment was passed, it is painfully obvious this was far from the intent of the founders.

The Second Amendment’s original intent was the disbanding of standing armies because they were viewed as a threat to a stable government. Following a war, the army would be forced to disband, forming local militia groups in their states.

This actually served to protect the government against a hostile takeover by a standing army rather than to empower the people to fight against a tyrannical government, the exact opposite of how many interpret the amendment.

Militias were regulated by the states and southern militias were referred to as slave patrols. In Georgia, for example, all white plantation owners or their white male employees were required by law to join the Georgia militia, making regular inspections of slaves’ quarters to prevent uprisings.

The main concern at the time to many southern slaveholders like George Mason and Patrick Henry was that the proposed constitution’s general welfare clause (Article 1, Section 8) could be interpreted to eventually free the slaves.

The general welfare clause included giving the federal government the power the supervise and regulate the militias. This worried slaveholders due to the possibility that federal militias could absorb state militias, causing them to no longer be slavery-enforcing institutions.

There was precedent for thisconcept in the lead-up to the revolutionary war during which slaves were offered freedom in exchange for fighting for the British army.

To compromise with slave states, at the command of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison changed the original draft of the Second Amendment from reading “a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country” to “free state,” to be sure there was zero ambiguity as to the state’s right to regulate state militias.

So, to be clear, the Second Amendment was enacted to disband standing armies and to allow slave states to regulate slave patrols in order to enforce and maintain the institution of slavery. Nothing to do with fending off a tyrannical government.

Until the famous court case District of Columbia v. Heller, it was understood that the right to bear arms was primarily endowed to militias, including state defense forces and the National Guard.

This case redefined the right to bear arms to be expanded to individuals, interpreting “militia” to include all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to serve in one.

This controversial case was a turning point in how the Second Amendment was interpreted with regard to self-defense and non-military gun ownership rights, overturning decades of jurisprudence on Second Amendment cases.

Now that the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment has completely changed to individual gun rights, gun ownership has become a constitutional issue rather than a political issue like it had been previously.

Unfortunately, overturning District of Columbia v. Heller is extremely unlikely and would have little effect on gun legislation.

Now that individual gun ownership rights have been grounded in judicial precedent, there will likely continue to be the endless expansion of gun rights by gun anarchists in groups like the National Rifle Association.

The intention of the Second Amendment was never to bolster individual gun ownership rights, rather it was specifically passed to protect the federal government from a military coup and to prolong the institution of slavery.

By shifting the legal interpretation of the amendment to non-military gun ownership, this strays greatly from the main reasons the amendment was passed to begin with.

The U.S. today is plagued with substantial gun violence, and strengthening individual gun ownership rights and accessibility is proven to lead to more violence.

The U.S. cannot keep following this path of universal gun accessibility. It is a threat to public safety, and it was not the founders’ intention in the slightest.

Bob Janovick: Second Amendment guarantees the First

Dave Chappelle received the Mark Twain Award on October 27. He said, “The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn’t work out.”

I believe that he has an understanding of what is wrong with “universal background checks.” Such a system requires that all firearms be registered in order to work. That system carries with it the necessity to record the location of the arms.

Imagine the country if the First no longer worked. Is it beyond belief that the arms to enforce the First would already be confiscated per “mandatory buy back?” Which begs the questions: How does buy back occur when it was never OWNED by the government. How does $200 (or less) for an $1,800 firearm qualify as a buy back? Would not the phrase “mandatory confiscation” be more accurate?

I am not a fan of Mr. Chappelle. But I do agree with these sentiments by event attendee, rapper Common: “He’s always been a leader in thought and culture. He says provocative things, and … it creates some uncomfortable conversations we don’t want to have, but we need people like him because even if you don’t agree with them, it brings them up and then people have to discuss it. We need courageous minds like that.”

Take that, college demonstrators!

Not a fan of politically correct (censorship) nor bully tactics.

Bob Janovick,

Self-preservation is a citizen’s natural right

Some argue that the Second Amendment does not make gun ownership a right, when really, it’s not about that.

The true heart of the Second Amendment is protection of the natural rights of the citizenry. It ensures the right of self-preservation and acts as a means to secure that right.

This right of self-preservation was described by John Locke in his 1690 “Second Treatise on Government,” from which the Framers drew heavily. Locke argues that this right allows men to live freely without interference by anything or anyone, including government.

It’s important to understand this point. Many of the Framers were students of Locke’s philosophical thinking and others of the time. It is ingrained into the very fabric of the Bill of Rights.

It even influenced Alexander Hamilton when he wrote in Federalist No. 28 that, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that natural right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of government.”

The Second Amendment is not a right bestowed by the government to the people. Quite the opposite. It secures the citizenry’s natural right of self-preservation from anything and anyone who wishes to take away their other natural rights or their liberty, including their own government.

To think that we, as free citizens, must ask the permission of our government for the right of self-preservation is simply ludicrous.

Mark Genarelli

Barboursville

‘Federalist Papers’ explain the Second Amendment

It seems a lot of people have a misconception of the meaning of the Second Amendment; The Bill of Rights gives no one anything. What it does do is stop the government from infringing on your right that is inherent to you just being a person. This goes way back 200 years in British common law.

There are estimated between 5 million and 10 million AR-15s in America. As of this writing, there have been 20 AR-15s used by school shooters. That is 0.0002 percent of AR-15s. You are worried about this? This is going to sound heartless but your child is more likely to be hit by lightning than be killed by a school shooter. It isn’t callous, it is just math.

If you really want to understand the Second Amendment, read “The Federalist Papers” written by the real writers of the Constitution — James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay — in particular numbers 29 and 36.

James Hoover

Wailuku

Need to be able to protect ourselves

To the editor:

Anyone in this country that thinks we, the citizens, don’t need AK47 and AR15 semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines just needs to look at what is happening in Hong Kong. If you don’t think that could happen in this country, you’ve got your head in the sand. In fact, we should have the same weapons as the military as it was set up when the Constitution was written. That’s what the second amendment is all about!

MATT KIILUNEN