| |
 |
 |
 |
1. Global warming claims all hot air, says speaker at OU2. Police chief: City can’t stop parties before they start3. Parties spun by OU alums have bootie-shakers raving4. High St. student renters take on big local landlord5. Is another oil and gas land-rush starting in Athens?6. OU student charged with raping 17-year-old7. For most, the journey to Nine Fest seemed worth it8. Tanning parlor fights to get back into uptown Athens storefront9. Oak and Mill fests mellow down easy10. Landowners’ group renews leasing pitch11. City Council acts to ban ‘fracking’ in water supply area12. Wal-Mart asks judge to grant store win in shoplifter’s lawsuit13. OU and city officials urge better fest behavior14. Pills defeated relative when no other drugs could do it15. David Alan Jones16. Electric blue skies, May warmth frame music fest17. Local developers hoping to revive struggling hotel18. Festering fests; down, down deep; and the Golden Rule19. Hall of Fame baseball coach calls it a day at OU20. Graphic design students show off their chops
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Home / Articles / Editorial / Letters / Gun-rights column exposes common ignorance of roots of 2nd Amendment
Sunday, June 5,2011
The Second Amendment was written in response to the possibility of a British invasion and a national tyrannical government. These days, the British usually stay in their island and the U.S. government has occasionally set up dictatorships, but only in other countries.
Gun-rights column exposes common ignorance of roots of 2nd Amendment
To the Editor:
We write in response to Thomas Stierhoff's opinion piece about concealed guns at establishments that sell alcohol. He argues that if law-abiding citizens had guns and could carry them everywhere, we would all be safer and more free. We disagree.
The Second Amendment was written in response to the possibility of a British invasion and a national tyrannical government. These days, the British usually stay in their island and the U.S. government has occasionally set up dictatorships, but only in other countries.
The Constitution is the basis for one of history's most successful social experiments, but the Second Amendment was written over 200 years ago when fighting for your safety and freedom was a real possibility. This is simply not the case anymore, yet Mr. Stierhoff's underlying argument rationalizes the paranoid belief that evil can materialize anywhere at anytime. We think that his argument ignores the safety of the general public and instead it reflects the agenda of interest groups that use "fear of the unknown" to enhance their economic and political power.
Danilo Cortes
Matt Filmore
Hanlin Avenue
Athens
Also in Letters:
Forest Service apparently on verge of allowing oil-gas leasesWhat good does Ohio University provide to Athens community?City just encourages drunk-fests by closing traffic, recognizing eventsLet’s hope that climate change denial evaporates into stupidityFor decency’s sake, Time Warner, bring back Columbus CBS!Mitt Romney and Palmer Fest celebrants have much in commonWhy is city discriminating against people who want to rent out homes?Health commissioner is ignoring a lot of hard data that questions fluorideIf you’re disgusted by banking folly, you can express yourself locallyCity Council right to challenge state law on fracking regulation
I carry, and it’s not political. Dare I say that I'm a liberal on every other front but this one.
That being said, you do not think "evil can materialize anywhere"? Are you kidding? Tell that to a rape victim, robbery victim, mugging victim, home invasion victim, or a murder victim. Oh, no evil can’t just materialize…It must be nice to live in your happy gum drop dream world. I hope, for your sake, you are never a victim of a violent crime because a lot of evil can happen to you before the cops get there...if they get there in time to save you or your family.
The bottom line is that the founding fathers established this fundamental right for every citizen. The right to defend one’s own life. Period. Just because you "feel" unsafe, is not quite a valid reason to disagree. Evil exists. You can choose to hope it never knocks on your door, or you can do something to protect yourself and your loved ones in case it does happen. You have no right to take away
Without firearms, the strong rule the weak. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" It's not paranoia...it's human nature. It's history. It can happen again.
Oh, and if you think the founding fathers meant the 2nd amendment was just for the militia and police...chew on these:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
— Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
— Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
You're absolutely right. We don't have a government that is significantly larger in size and economic power than ever conceived, that controls more of peoples' everyday lives, that legislates further outside the true scope of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, that has the ability to spy on everyday citizens as long as it can invent a good enough reason, and that could possibly ever continue in the same fashion until a point a generation or two down the road where it would ever get to be legitimately tyrannical enough that citizens may actually need to defend themselves against their own corrupt government to protect individual liberty.
If you really think that could never, ever, possibly happen...zero chance, EVER...then you are right. However, if you are a halfway reasonable person that thinks that, maybe, just MAYBE that's possible, then the reason for the Second Amendment is still as valid as it was over two hundred years ago.
Interesting, considering the title of your article, I'd expect you to have a somewhat better understanding of the roots of the Second Amendment.
"These days, the British usually stay in their island and the U.S. government has occasionally set up dictatorships, but only in other countries."
THIS is what the author offers as reassurance that the future government of the US can be trusted?
Yes, evil can materialize anywhere. I would rather put my faith in the vast majority of us who are good and decent than the minority of miscreants that will always be among us, and will always find a way to do their ill will.
The Second Amendment stands as a monument to the fact that we are self-governed. It is emblematic of a free people who will never submit to tyranny.
There isn't an unarmed civilization in history that didn't eventually meet it's demise at the hands of tyrants either foreign or domestic. Not one.
The second amendment as RATIFIED by the state’s.
“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.”
Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause of a complex sentence, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)
Yet these children now claim the dependent clause (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,) is the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English.
Have at it children, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.
Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war?
Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing?
No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.
Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment.
You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today.
Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted?
Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.
Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have.
They always fail to prove, that the militia existed before the armed individual.
"...The Constitution is the basis for one of history's most successful social experiments, but the Second Amendment was written over 200 years ago when fighting for your safety and freedom was a real possibility. This is simply not the case anymore...".
These Idiots, and I considered my terminology before using it, write this after ignoring 200 years of history - and reading none the world-news headlines from the very day they wrote it.
Geesh.