We need right to bear arms

  • Follow Letters

Regarding our right to bear arms: The politicians and liberal news media would like you to believe that it’s about hunting. They say there is no need to have a gun to shoot 10 or more bullets, or for armor-piercing shells, since deer do not wear armor.

The truth is that our right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, and they know it. Our forefathers were under the control of an absolute government, under the king of England. The right to bear arms was to fight to keep our God-given freedoms threatened by foreign powers, and to keep our government from running amok. Our Founding Fathers knew this from experience.

When President Obama said he wanted a “civilian national security force” as large as the U.S. armed forces, that was what Hitler said of Germany – and had. I am not saying that Obama is a Hitler, but when the president of the United States even thinks that, it is a cause of concern.

Our Founding Fathers said that the government should be afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the government. This is why they gave us the right to bear arms. They knew man was not perfect and could turn tyrannical. Just think about it! Do you still think only the government should have guns?

Comments (31) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Young Fred
15724
Points
Young Fred 12/31/12 - 02:21 am
15
0
Radical

I hope you realize how “radical” your letter sounds. It matters not that what you say is true. Perception is all that matters in today's world.

There are those that believe guns are the root of all evil. These simplistic souls actually believe stricter gun control laws will solve this nation's ills. Personally I could care less what they believe. My home is defended from both foreign and domestic threats. I plan on keeping it that way.

KSL
121952
Points
KSL 12/31/12 - 03:17 am
13
1
The resolve of the American

The resolve of the American people, the good ones, is being shown everyday. They want to take back America and what she and her people who have stood for for. No UN dictating us. No punks off the streets, no foreign reared president dictating to us.

Young Fred
15724
Points
Young Fred 12/31/12 - 03:56 am
11
2
Foreign reared president? We

Foreign reared president? We will never (no not ever) know.

This has been like a very bad B movie. Mao or Stalin could not have scripted a more complete or inclusive downfall to the hated capitalist.

Central government will grow more powerful. The people will give away more freedoms, and will smile all the while.

carcraft
24320
Points
carcraft 12/31/12 - 06:32 am
11
1
I just don't understand the

I just don't understand the press in America today. IF a leftist dictator took over, some of the first killed or sent to never be heard from again, would be from the press. That is why Freedom of the press is enshrined with the right to bear arms. These same folks protected by the freedom of the press don’t support the military and allow cover up after cover up by this administration from Solyndra to Benghazi!

TrulyWorried
12303
Points
TrulyWorried 12/31/12 - 07:35 am
6
0
Guns

The ranters above spoke for me too! Thank you!
AND Happy New Year to everyone - let us hope that it will be a good and safe one. AND let US, all the people, stick together to keep it that way.

Riverman1
79578
Points
Riverman1 12/31/12 - 07:46 am
8
0
Don't Need It, We Have It

I have a problem with the headline: "We need right to bear arms."

We don't need it, WE HAVE it because the Constitution gives us that right. It's clear what their intent was...to protect us from bad rulers.

CobaltGeorge
150600
Points
CobaltGeorge 12/31/12 - 08:20 am
13
2
CobaltGeorge Is Back

Our Hammer & Sickle Man has one main agenda, to make the following C&P come true.

Are we going to allow it to happen?

AMERICA’S FUTURE
Just a Shotgun..

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers...

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term...

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm's still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done. The UN Small Arms Treaty that Hilary is negotiating would take away our 2nd Amendment rights. And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.
Just remember - the reason the Japanese didn't invade the USA is because they knew that Most of the citizens were armed.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" Benjamin Franklin

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 12/31/12 - 08:45 am
4
13
"I am not saying that Obama

"I am not saying that Obama is a Hitler, but". When you add the "but" you just changed the meaning of the previous words. Very similar to the, "I'm not a racist, but...".
Why do virtually non of the pro-second Amendment letters ever mention the, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part?

SEC. I
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot. unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

SEC. 2.
And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or publishing, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

SEC. 3.
And be it further enacted, and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

SEC. 4.
And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided. That the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.

JONATHAN DAYTON, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

THEODORE SEDGWICK, President of the Senate, pro tempore.

APPROVED, July 14, 1798:

JOHN ADAMS, President of the United States.

nofanofobama
6750
Points
nofanofobama 12/31/12 - 10:04 am
13
0
cilivians have to be armed to

cilivians have to be armed to form a militia..a militia is a military composed of ordiniary civilians..that like the letter writer is why we have the 2nd. amendment...no more no less...to protect us from foreign and domestic tyrannts.o

Little Lamb
43919
Points
Little Lamb 12/31/12 - 10:41 am
9
0
Militia

Thank you, NoFan, for succinctly and correctly answering TechFan's question. The right to bear arms is for Americans to form militias when the need arises in order to fight the forces of their tyrannical government. It's a sad thought, but we must be prepared. Perhaps sooner, rather than later.

Jon Lester
2270
Points
Jon Lester 12/31/12 - 10:28 am
2
1
I'm a leftist, but I'm not a statist, and I think anyone

who seriously suggests repealing the Second Amendment deserves an immediate taste of life without the other nine in the Bill of Rights. The Founders themselves wouldn't be considered "conservative" by today's standards, either, you know.

Free bonus: I recently found Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" in its entirety online:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

InChristLove
22420
Points
InChristLove 12/31/12 - 10:33 am
5
0
(Techfan) "I am not saying

(Techfan) "I am not saying that Obama is a Hitler, but". When you add the "but" you just changed the meaning of the previous words"

Not at all Techfan. You must read the other part of the "conjection" which can also mean "yet"

" I am not saying that Obama is a Hitler, but when the president of the United States even thinks that, it is a cause of concern."

now read it with the meaning "yet"

I am not saying that Obama is a Hilter, yet when the president of the US even thinks that, is a a cause of concern.

Doesn't change the meaning of the sentence at all, unless you interpret the sentence to mean what you want it to say, which is dishonest.

Same as your claim "I'm not a racist, but...".

If the sentence is "I'm not a racist, but I know someone who is" The "but" is used as an exception. "I'm not a racist, except that I know someone who is".

Words don't change their meaning, only people do.

RMSHEFF
14059
Points
RMSHEFF 12/31/12 - 10:47 am
9
0
Techfan

You are seeing history through the lense of today. The founders feared federal government and wanted to give most of the power to the states. This fear had proven to be well founded as the scope, power ,authority of the federal government has increased slowly over the last 100 years. Since this happened slowly over several generations most people (like yourself) have not even noticed. We have been ceding our right and freedoms to the federal government in exchange for the "perception" of security. We will lose both. The people of America will over time surrender the right to bear arms. As the post say above, this will not happen all at once but slowly over time. First it will be "assault" weapons and then all semi automatic weapons. After that hand guns. The only thing left will be long guns and they will go to as the story above states. I could make this same case for the 1st amendment. Look at Europe and Canada. There are people in jail in Canada and Europe that were found guilty of hate speech. ie, preaching what the Word of God says about Homosexuality.

dichotomy
30666
Points
dichotomy 12/31/12 - 10:54 am
7
1
Riverman1 is correct. We HAVE

Riverman1 is correct. We HAVE the right to bear arms. And Mr. Lewandowski is quite correct, the reason that RIGHT was established has nothing to do with hunting.

Our founders were quite aware of the necessity of being able to defend ourselves from criminals, defend ourselves during civil unrest or natural and manmade disaster, possibly repel an attack or invasion, and yes, possibly needing to throw off an oppressive government.

If our founders had intended that we could only have a squirrel gun they would have spelled it out. But they said ARMS, as in arming yourself for defense.......or rebellion if necessary. Our founders were patriots and lovers of freedom and liberty who feared a powerful government. I miss them and men like them.

And for those who always insist on throwing up our founders and the issue of slavery, I don't want to hear it. It took over 200 years for the colonies to revolt against the English king and heavy handed rule and taxation (sound familiar). Slavery was a worldwide accepted practice at the time. The issue of slavery could not have been addressed in the Constitution because the new nation could not fight a civil war on the heels of fighting a of revolution. It took another 90 years to do away with slavery but the words that inspired that action, and the words that were used to force the Civil Rights Act, were put into the Constitution by our founders. Pretty smart guys weren't they? And they were smart when they put in the 1st and 2nd Amendments too.

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 12/31/12 - 10:55 am
0
0
I find the letter
Unpublished

I find the letter contradictory. On one hand, he seems to be defending the right to bear arms in order to rise up against the government, but on the other, when Obama proposes the same thing (according to him), he rejects it. In any event, it is a pipe dream to think that anyone is going up against the might of the US military and prevail in this day and time.

avidreader
2999
Points
avidreader 12/31/12 - 11:12 am
3
0
Wow!

It's nice that I'm on vacation. I read all of the commentaries above, and it only took 45 minutes. This has to be a record for lenthy posts.

myfather15
50050
Points
myfather15 12/31/12 - 11:57 am
2
0
@avidreader

This is a touchy subject that many people have strong opinions on. The comments are usually long on gun control, gay marriage, abortion and religion. Those are all topics people feel strongly about.

myfather15
50050
Points
myfather15 12/31/12 - 12:04 pm
5
0
Founding Fathers

George Washington; "A government that doesn't trust it's citizens with guns, is a government that doesn't trust it's citizens with guns because it has an evil plan."

Ben Franklin; "A people who would give up essential liberties for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I agree with another poster with their remarks about the founding fathers and slavery. Most of them didn't agree with slavery but they knew they couldn't fight a revolution and civil war at the same time. Shortly after winning the revolutionary war, they couldn't engage in civil war immediately because it would have weakened America and embolden the enemy to start a new revolution. The republic was in it's infancy and would have been very vulnerable to foreign attacks had it engaged in a civil war.

Bantana
2071
Points
Bantana 12/31/12 - 12:25 pm
0
3
I believe what we really need

I believe what we really need is: The Right to Arm Bears. :-)))

Take a deep breath and relax y'all.

nofanofobama
6750
Points
nofanofobama 12/31/12 - 12:34 pm
2
0
how about bare arms

how about bare arms

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 12/31/12 - 12:47 pm
4
0
"a civilian national security force"??

For what? We knew he was leading up to this, well, some of us did! And who will be members of this "force"? Get it? Force! The government does Not fear us, they have had power over us so long, they are convinced they can continue the oppression of us, and with the "leader" we have now, GOD help us! Thanks George for the enlightening comment, and I am so happy to hear from you again. I remember reading the quote from the Japanese military guy, he said something to the effect that America could not be invaded because there would be someone behind every blade of grass with a weapon. Hopefully, no one will think of all the gun-control activists!

RMSHEFF
14059
Points
RMSHEFF 12/31/12 - 01:38 pm
3
0
In God we trust...

As our founders believed : In God we Trust...not government. Government is made up of men, sinful men, men that seek power and treasure for themselves and their friends. Our founder knew this and designed a constitutional republic that would best protect the people from powerful men by keeping the power in the hands of the people. They warned us of the weaknesses of our system and it has turned out that their fears are becoming a reality. It takes a statesman to give power away and to return it to the individual and trust him to make his own decisions and live with the consequences of his decisions. President Obama beliefs are the antithesis of what our founders believed. He is an elitist progressive and a collectivist. Progressives believe man is getting smarter and better everyday and he seeks to establish a perfect society. A society designed and run by the smart people (themselves) and if we would just turn all of the decisions in life over to them , they could create this utopia. This is a global project. Read the information on the internet about the united nations "agenda 21".

CobaltGeorge
150600
Points
CobaltGeorge 12/31/12 - 02:28 pm
4
1
RMSHEFF

If those that had the intelligence to read "agenda 21", wouldn't accept or believe it or say it was nothing more than propaganda.

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 12/31/12 - 04:10 pm
3
1
Wish we could post Pictures with approval

I have the perfect picture for this topic.

I took a Cell Phone picture at Wally-World in North Augusta.
The ammo case empty of every caliber expect #8 12ga., .17cal and .273 cal. and several gun owners. All talking where get some 22cal, 38. 357Mag, 40cal , 45 and 9mm.

If you're anti-Gun your are happy, but if you re not one of those few, then you are wondering many things, yes many things right now.

specsta
6108
Points
specsta 12/31/12 - 08:37 pm
1
3
What We Need Is Wisdom

When the U.S. Constitution was written, "arms" consisted of muskets, rifles, swords and bayonets. All weapons that hurled lead projectiles were inaccurate in finding their target (about 20% accuracy), took extremely long times to reload and, in the case of a cannon, required a crew of 14 men.

The Founding Fathers never imagined a world where an AR-15 could disperse 45 rounds a minute, with 30-round clips readily available to support that level of lethal delivery.

For those who believe that semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the public is no big deal, despite the fact that these weapons are ONLY used to kill human beings, my question is - why stop there?

If we have an unlimited right to "bear arms", shouldn't it be our right to own a tank? Caches of M-67 frag grenades? Fully automatic M4A1 carbines with a grenade launcher? Rocket launchers? Claymores? Why the restrictions, if the US Constitution guarantees our Second Amendment rights?

Maybe it's because it's not a wise idea for untrained citizens to own such things. If people use guns to settle disputes over who ate the last chicken wing, imagine what would happen if everyone had ready access to frag grenades.

The weapons listed are solely used to kill other human beings. They exist for no other reason. It would be reasonable to say that semi-automatic assault rifles and 30-round magazines really have no use for the ordinary citizen.

Gage Creed
15769
Points
Gage Creed 12/31/12 - 09:53 pm
2
1
Directed Energy Weapons! Only

Directed Energy Weapons! Only the government should have access to microwaves, light, and sound! (sarcasm off)

carcraft
24320
Points
carcraft 12/31/12 - 10:08 pm
2
2
Specstra I know many hunters

Specstra I know many hunters who hunt with semi autos. The 7.62X39 is a every good round for deer! The dragonoff is very accurate. I have hunted with an SKS. These guns are so a lot of fun to shoot. You are simply wrong!

carcraft
24320
Points
carcraft 12/31/12 - 10:11 pm
1
2
30 round Mag's are great if

30 round Mag's are great if you want the government to fear you instead of you fearing the government! They are very useful for private individuals!

Young Fred
15724
Points
Young Fred 12/31/12 - 11:31 pm
0
1
Spectra, yours is a common

Spectra, yours is a common argument.

You presuppose that arguments over chicken wings will result in grenades being tossed about like yesterdays salad.

And that in a nut-shell is the basic argument.

Responsible gun owners wouldn't dream of blowing off a neighbors head because of a minor dispute. Lefties don't understand this.

Psycho’s on the other hand will use machetes, gasolene, kerosene, baseball bats, darts, automobiles, razor blades, ink pens, martial arts, hairspray w/lighter, bleach, dye, bullhorns, yellow jackets, heavy china-ware, butter knives etc... Lefties don't understand this.

When a 280 lb, psycho crashes a school welding a torch and slavering at the mouth, what are you going to do?

Back to Top

Top headlines

Commission rejects tax jump

Seven commissioners nixed a proposed tax increase Monday that would cost a typical homeowner $70 a year, leaving the countywide millage unset with just a few days to meet state deadlines.
Search Augusta jobs