Interesting letter about the 2nd Amendment

**Warpt762x39** · December 27th, 2008, 06:14 PM

Some don't understand Second Amendment

By DAN CARTER
Guest commentary

Dan Thomasson's Dec. 10 column, "Guns in National Parks will cause mayhem," was a very-overdone attempt to sensationalize something small into something big. Basically, the change is whatever concealed-carry law a state has, it will also apply to national parks within the state. Nothing really earth shattering. Since concealed-carry permit holders are not shooting up their home towns, they will probably not begin shooting up national parks. I don't see anything to be alarmed about here. There is however, something alarming about a national syndicated columnist demonstrating such ignorance and arrogance concerning the Constitution and Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia did not have to "Validate the claim of Constitutionally-guaranteed gun privileges for individual Americans." First of all, the Constitution and Bill of Rights does not guarantee "privileges." The Bill of Rights clarifies "rights" that every American has, granted by their creator, that the government can not take away. Secondly, gun ownership by individuals was the Founders' intent from the beginning. If you research the actual words of the Founders of our nation and Constitution, it is very clear how they felt about a man being armed for defense of his person and property, his nation and liberty. There are a number of scholarly works substantiating this. I have seen no historical research to refute it. It was their belief that arms in the hands of honest men would detour criminal activity and government tyranny. Apparently, they are right. In the past two decades a majority of states have allowed for concealed carry of handguns, and have seen decreases in crime. During the same period, England and Australia confiscated guns and crime has risen drastically and continues to do so. Taking guns from the good guys will never convince the bad guys to play nice.

I assume Mr. Thomasson subscribes to the "collective rights" theory. This is a new philosophy of the last 70 or 80 years. The Supreme Court is not supposed to interpret the Constitution. Our government is based on laws, not the opinions of whoever is in charge at the time. That is how dictatorships and monarchies work. The Constitution is written in stone, the Supreme Court is only supposed to see whether or not new legislation violates the premise of the Constitution and amendments as written.

If the Second Amendment means the government has a right to form a military, and the military has the right to be armed, it is very out of place in a document that is widely recognized as stating the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. If we accept that the Second Amendment is about a "collective right," could we not also assume that the other nine may also be "collective rights?" If the Second Amendment is a "collective right" of the state to form a militia, perhaps Amendment 4 means that the "people's" right to be sure in their property means only their "collective" property; in other words, property owned by the state. Perhaps the First Amendment only applies to state organized peaceable assemblies. Could freedom of the press only apply to government publications?

Can the same proposed requirements of gun ownership be placed on other portions of the Bill of Rights? There are a lot of cyber criminals and sexual predators out there, perhaps a background check and waiting period would be prudent before a person can have Internet. If we required people to register what church they affiliate with and strictly control Bibles, Korans, and such, could we not better stop religious fanatics from causing mayhem? Some of these guys have perpetuated mass suicide and murder How many magazines does a person need to subscribe to anyway? A 27-inch television is fine, but anything bigger is just unnecessary for the general public to posses, and those 400-watt sub woofers, no way. Way too powerful for ordinary people to handle without disrupting the peace of the community. I-phones and Blackberries are way too powerful and concealable to carry without a permit.

There are of course some limitations on most all activities. However, we as citizens are generally trusted to use these and many other rights without government interference unless we violate laws or standards of decency that disrupt and harm others, then, the law will interfere. If we must seek government permission, it is not a right of freemen, but as Mr. Thomasson suggests, a privilege granted by government.

It seems that there are those who believe that merely possessing a gun makes a person a menace to society. There are over 700 million gun owners in this nation. I don't think we have even close to 700 million menaces. There doesn't seem to be a very strong link here to justify arbitrarily interfering with one specific right of people who wish to access it. What other part of our Constitution would we be willing to give up just because there is someone who doesn't like it?

Before we start down a road we must look carefully ahead and see what could be at the end of the road. We can start a bad precedence. Smoking bans started with just some reasonable indoor public restrictions. Look where it has gone now? I am not a smoker but I detest the way government has micro-managed a person's choice to smoke. This is definitely a dangerous road for anyone who relishes liberty, particularly at a time when the federal government seems to completely disregard the Constitutional limits of the government's reach. Restrictions or meddling placed on one right today may be placed on another tomorrow, and once the government has done something it is very hard to undo it. Precedence from one case often spills over into another.

The Bill of Rights is a complete package, one leg supports the others. We can't pick and choose which parts we like and will uphold, and which ones we dislike and will let fall. If the structure is weakened by any one leg collapsing, we endanger the integrity of the whole structure. If we pick and choose to our liking, then others can pick and choose to theirs, their choices being different than ours That can't work. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a complete, package deal, if we discredit one part, then we risk losing the whole. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but without our swords, they can close our churches, stop our presses and take our property. A few formerly free countries thought, "that will never happen" -- but it did.

We have reached a sad time indeed when half of our Supreme Court does not understand the historical foundation of, nor have respect for, the law it has sworn to uphold and instead uses its position to insert their own opinions. Changing the Constitution is a long and tenuous process requiring a huge majority of our population to support it. It is not an undertaking to be left to a hand-full of elitist judges, politicians and journalists who sneer down their superior noses at us commoners who actually still believe in the sanctity of our Constitution.

**Brick** · December 27th, 2008, 08:39 PM

Very good letter. I suggest you save it. You're going to need to refer to it for points to use in letters to both state and federal Senators and Representatives to argue against upcoming anti-gun legislation.

**dodgefolks** · December 27th, 2008, 09:56 PM

I like it! They really get it!

**tl_3237** · December 27th, 2008, 10:52 PM

There are over 700 million gun owners in this nation.

An extra zero here?

**MrBi11** · December 27th, 2008, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by tl_3237

An extra zero here?

maybe: stats from around the interweb......

------------------

Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns).

-------------------

figures from 2002-2001 from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives said there are 294 million gun owners in the U.S.

-------------------

The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner

**tl_3237** · December 28th, 2008, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by MrBi11

maybe: stats from around the interweb......

------------------

Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns).

-------------------

figures from 2002-2001 from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives said there are 294 million gun owners in the U.S.

-------------------

The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner

From US Census Bureau:

Population of US Jul '08 was 304 million.
Population 18+ years of age (Gun ownership age) Jul '07 227.7 million

I can believe 70 million gun owners.

Obviously 700 million is impossible as is the BATF quote of 294 million.

**kevindsingleton** · December 28th, 2008, 10:02 AM

Interesting letter, but not ready for publication. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation matter, as do sentence structure and organization of ideas.

Even more than that, there are too many factual statements that are simply wrong for this letter to effectively influence a reader.

Keep working on it. You've made a good start, and your passion about the topic does shine through.