Opinion: No restrictions are constitutional
Sen. Leahy, you are quoted as saying, relative to what kind of legislation that might be passed, “And, of course, we have to work within the context of the Second Amendment.” If you really mean that, you will cease and desist in any further effort to pass further gun control laws.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20130506/OPINION02/705069963
Published May 6, 2013 in the Rutland Herald True right to bear arms True right to bear arms May I respond to Mr. Brown’s convoluted interpretation (April 27 “Gun rights as holy writ”) of the Second Amendment? Sorry to disappoint you but it is “Holy Writ.” (Sorta.) Maybe God didn’t give Adam the first firearm but Jesus said, “If you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” So, it seems Jesus was more interested in our defending ourselves than He was in us keeping warm. (Going to be interesting to see how you spin that one.) As to your assertion that the Amendment does not guarantee an individual right, if you go back and study the Founding Fathers’ “original intent,” you will find that they did intend that it be individual. Nowhere in the Federalist Papers or any other document from that era is there even the slightest hint that they intended otherwise. In fact, while they were discussing what it should say, someone suggested that they insert “for the common defense” between “arms” and “shall” so it would have read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed.” If they had done that, you might have a leg to stand on but they didn’t. In fact, they hooted the guy out of the hall. A well regulated militia – what is being regulated, disciplined, is the militia, which is composed of people and has nothing to do with regulating guns. They could be armed with pitchforks or clubs or whiffletrees. The free state mentioned is not a piece of real estate but is, rather, a condition of being, such as “state of the art” or “state of the Union,” i.e., the state of being free. The right (something to which one has a just claim) to keep (to retain in one’s possession) and bear (to carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed ... which means no restrictions — got it? Every victim disarmament law (gun control) violates this Amendment. So, there you have it. RICH WILLETTE
Yup. So, there you have it. For everyone's sake I pray Mr. Willette is not a professor of constitutional law. I have not read Mr. Brown's opinion, but I sincerely hope that no matter how convoluted it was, it was at least better formed than Mr. Willette's half-hearted attempt at being clever. For the sake of both sides of the 2nd Amendent argument, please stop using the now rendered meaningless term of "victim". Are you referring to the many Americans (including a large number of Vermonters) that still want to hunt and protect themselves and their families without being murdered by the mentally ill and gang members with easily obtained weapons? Both sides should throw away the kind of pseudo-intellectualism that evidently informed Mr. Willette's opinion if we want to improve upon the union our founding fathers fought so hard to create, lest some among us naively believe they got it perfectly right the first time.
ReplyDeleteMolon Labe
ReplyDeleteGo Spartans!
DeleteIf King Arthur had thought of Excalibur the way we think of firearms, he would have treated it like a can opener and lost it in the first month. Until we understand that guns have a power not designed into almost any other artifact, we will not understand the nature of truly responsible ownership.
ReplyDeleteA truly responsible owner does more than handle a firearm safely; like King Arthur, he takes care never to let it pass into unworthy hands-- which means he ALWAYS owns it. Every gun owner should be held to the conditions of this warning at time of purchase of a firearm:
"With the purchase of this gun, you are about to exercise your Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms.
"Be advised that it is yours for life. As long as it exists, whoever uses it, uses it in your name. It is your responsibility to see that it never passes into lesser hands. If you leave it unsecured, lend or present it to a friend, sell it, lose it, pawn it or in any other way let it pass from your hands, you will still be responsible for its use.
"You cannot transfer this responsibility to any other user of your weapon. If five years from now your grandson kills himself with it, if it is used in a hold-up or to kill a spouse or threaten a school fifteen years from now, you might be held civilly or criminally responsible. As long as this gun exists, it will be held by law to be used with your express or implied permission.
"When you wish to be absolved of responsibility for it, you may do so, but only by destroying it or dying. Until the gun is disposed of posthumously and this obligation transferred to the new possessor, your estate will be held responsible for its use. Your estate cannot be settled until it is disposed of.
"Nevertheless, you may buy and own at any time as many more guns as you wish under the law.
"By keeping control of your weapon for its lifetime, you are helping to reduce America’s gun homicide rate by 80 percent. Thank you for being a responsible gun owner."
Chuck, you have spewed this non sense before, no one signed on to it then, so give it a rest. We live in a free society where each man is responsible for his actions.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, have you seen my pressure cooker?
Too soon.
ReplyDeleteClassy avatar by the way. How are things over on Stormfront?
DeleteChuck ,do you own any weapons as it seems you have a lot to say about them
ReplyDeleteArmed invasions are occuring in the homes of Sprigfield Residents!!!! Guns will be by my side, in my car and on my person every where I go in this town.
ReplyDeleteThe Machinist, not only have I owned for the last 45+years a really beautiful 14-shot .22 semi-automatic, but I also know how to convert it to fully automatic with a commonly available tool. Plus, as Gunnery Officer, I was responsible for a fairly broad range of weaponry, some of which could have nuked a major American city back in the day. Part of my job was to see that no two sailors came back disgruntled from shore leave and decided to end the night on a happier note by taking out Norfolk, Virginia.
ReplyDeleteBut let's talk about the effects of such a condition of sale, not about your personal feelings: What would change if people bought a gun knowing fit would be their lifelong responsibility?
Hmmm.... the rest is silence.
Delete