Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Constitutional rights

This letter has not been edited

David DeVoe of Denver writes:

Published December 10, 2007 at 2:08 p.m.

Text size  

In response to the letter claiming that history doesn’t support the individual’s right to own guns, I would like congratulate Mr. Ryan for his historic approach to putting words in the mouths of the forefathers of this fine republic in which we live. To single out the Second Amendment as being a “collective” or “militia only” right is ridiculous, as it is found in the Bill Of Rights, surrounded by such amazing forethoughts as the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. I would like to hear Mr. Ryan’s thoughts on how the right to free speech and the First Amendment is a “collective” right, as well. The honest truth is that the Bill Of Rights is undoubtedly the work of the forefathers in drawing the line about how to preserve the individual’s rights and freedoms. And while I can agree with some that the world has changed much in the last two hundred plus years, I still stand up and say the Pledge Of Allegiance, including the “under God” part, whether I am of a Christian faith or no. This country was founded on some very basic tenets and we would do well as a society to keep them close to our minds and hearts.

The important thing to remember is that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, put forth so that the individual citizen has a last resort in defending himself, not only from the tyranny of invading nations (as in the militia only defense) but also from his own government. The Fathers of the United States saw the need for the fact that the future might necessitate an uprising, and in their own uprising found that things had improved.

I urge everyone concerned about their Constitutional Rights to do research and determine for themselves how they feel about things such as the freedom to say what you will, and the right to defend your basic freedoms. The Second Amendment exists to defend the other articles in the Bill Of Rights, and as soon as we let that slip away, we may as well turn ourselves back over to England to ruin us all over again.

Comments

  • December 10, 2007

    2:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    glowrock writes:

    Exactly what does the statement "well-regulated militia" mean in your mind, David? I assume "well-regulated militia" in your mind means every individual. I don't assume that.

    Not to mention, need I even dare mention that the guns that were envisioned by our forefathers weren't exactly the high-powered, much deadlier weaponry that's so common in today's society?

    Nah, let's just keep our heads in the sand, collectively chanting "guns! guns! guns!"...

    Yeah, right...

  • December 10, 2007

    3:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    Hey Earl, who is obsessed with Ted Kennedy, it is also true that Laura Bush`s car killed more people than your hand gun. And she was sober, or was she.?

  • December 10, 2007

    4:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    glowrock writes:

    Earl, it must be nice to live your life in a cloud of self-righteous indignity wrapped within a cloud of partisanship...

    Do you have any true response to my question regarding a "well-regulated militia", or do you simply want to keep repeating the NRA mantra, throwing in a Ted Kennedy reference just for effect?

  • December 10, 2007

    7:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Uno writes:

    Hmm, some people likes to pick the constitution apart word by word. Let’s look at that by the whole sentence;

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So, what part of “People” can be mistaken for a well regulated militia?

  • December 10, 2007

    8:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Frank25 writes:

    Article was written in RMN so perhaps Colorado Constitution adopted 14 March 1876 (a bit closer to when the U.S. Constitution was written, so I will assume people of Colorado knew difference between people and militia in 1876), ARTICLE II, Section 13. quote: "That the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. " end of quote.
    Writings early in colonist days showed that Jefferson was afraid of standing armies, since Europe exerted power in that manner. Therefore, his papers indicate that each male, physically and mentally able, should have personal weapon to protect home, family, and possessions. When called by elected or appointed officials, these individuals would form in militia for the common good. Elsewhere, U.S. Constitution indicated that if government became oppressive, that government could be thrown off, and new government formed. I doubt that would happen if homeowners could only be armed with flintlocks or blunderbusses. Owning weapons was not protected by constitution for hunting purposes. Some of you need to get real, and do some reading. With google, you won't even have to go to library and ask for assistance.

  • December 10, 2007

    10:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    clyde writes:

    "Exactly what does the statement "well-regulated militia" mean in your mind, David? I assume "well-regulated militia" in your mind means every individual. I don't assume that.

    Not to mention, need I even dare mention that the guns that were envisioned by our forefathers weren't exactly the high-powered, much deadlier weaponry that's so common in today's society?

    Nah, let's just keep our heads in the sand, collectively chanting "guns! guns! guns!"...

    Yeah, right..."

    They probably never foresaw how badly the Commerce Clause would be bastardized to make the Federal Government more tyrannical and onerous than the King of England ever was. They probably also didn't foresee how words would be twisted to allow purely Unconstitutional actions to not only occur, but to flourish, committed by "Public Servants".

    "A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves"

  • December 11, 2007

    12:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    freethinker07 writes:

    A militia, as opposed to a standing army, is comprised of citizens bringing their own weapons to a military action. In order to be able to fight together they have to practice together so that they can be well regulated.

    A standing army provides weapons, uniforms, pay, to soldiers who may not have anyone in particular to fight. We know they practice together.

    Militias were called up to deal with specific problems and were disbanded as soon as possible so they could go home and get the crops in.

    While I will grant that an M-15 is a much higher powered weapon than a 30 caliber musket, I suspect that they are equally likely to kill a live target.

  • December 11, 2007

    6:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    haddock writes:

    I think freethinker07 is closest to the truth. The argument, however, is not whether or not people should own guns. It is how to prevent the mind set that exists in America where individuals shoot up people in Malls and churches. These are not pre-existing "criminals" that would hide weapons like the Mafia, these are sick and anomic individuals. As a society, if we fix whatever it is that causes this craziness, everyone can carry guns (even own MIGS) without everyone else fearing for their lives.

  • December 11, 2007

    7:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    Freethinker, very good post. Nice to see someone with a bit of military history write. Standing armies are very expensive, mobilizing is time consuming. Having a militia is the best of both worlds.

    Nothing we have in the private sector today would be a "well regulated militia" no matter how it is defined.

  • December 11, 2007

    9:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    farmboy writes:

    glowrock wrote, "Exactly what does the statement 'well-regulated militia' mean"

    At the time the Constitution was written, "well-regulated" did not mean "government controlled". It had to do with accuracy, proficiency, practiced. For instance, a clock was also considered "well-regulated" if it ran on time. Someone who was in a well-regulated militia was basically someone who could shoot straight.

    "the guns that were envisioned by our forefathers weren't exactly the high-powered, much deadlier weaponry that's so common in today's society"

    By that reasoning, the First Amendment would apply only to quill pens and the Gutenberg printing press. After all, these same forefathers couldn't possibly have envisioned things like movies, TV, radio, internet...

  • December 11, 2007

    10:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    RickyLee if the government ever wants your guns, remember: The government always has one more gun than you have.

  • December 11, 2007

    10:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jgd writes:

    Sharon,

    They may come and get my gun with their bigger guns, but I refuse to let a bunch of cowardly politician unconstitutionally do it in Congress.

  • December 12, 2007

    1:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    clyde writes:

    Baghdad should serve as a good example of an army going into someone else's territory and attempting to occupy it. One resident with local knowledge is worth ten troops without. Plus, most of our Armed Forces would NEVER invade and occupy any territory within America. You would see wholesale desertions.

  • December 13, 2007

    12:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dr_J writes:

    Glowrock was apparently out protesting when he/she should have been in school. The preamble to the 2nd amendment is precisely that, and it does not take away the impact of the main phrase which specifies an individual right. If this is not clear and reading is a skill one possesses he/she may want to read the Federalist Papers which explain in detail the whys and whats of each portion of the Constitution and expands upon the meanings behind the sometimes pity wordings. The recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is very clear in those writings as well as in the materials used by the Framers in composing the US Constitution. Also, if one looks at the Bill of Rights, nearly every enumerated right is aimed at the individual. Finally, even if one is too obtuse to get past the word 'militia', the militia in the time of the composing of the Constitution was every able-bodied male; (read 'citizen' as a parallel concept for today's society).
    I find it quite alarming to see such militant ignorance, especially in light of the events at New Life Church this past weekend. In every other mass shooting which was not stopped in time by an armed citizen, the events took place in so called "Gun Free Zones". Scientific studies by the likes of Dr. John Lott, Jr. (and many others) show that more arms in the hands of the law-abiding actually REDUCES violent crime, while the places with the most draconian gun control laws suffer the highest violent crime rates. (See the FBI website and look in the Uniform Crime Reports and correlate the results there with the degree of gun restrictions for each locale and one does not have to be a statistician to see this.) How many innocent people must die before folks like glowrock develop a brain and wake up? Until that miracle happens, folks of such stupefying blindness as that unfortunate and strident individual need to be ignored and society needs to return to the roots intended by the Framers.