How to regulate?

  • Follow Letters

The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

The right to keep and to bear arms is based upon two principles: security of a free state, and a well-regulated (trained) militia (National Guard). Thus, the Constitution admits to some vetting as to military age; soundness of mind and body; and training in the proper use of the weapon of personal choice.

The more complex and powerful, the more need to demonstrate skill in target practice; in cleaning and storing the weapon; and the security against unauthorized use. The vetting should be more than the “processing” depicted in the comedy film No Time for Sergeants. Although the film’s military psychologist’s question “Do you hate your mother?” might be a good question, the generic issue of “hate” certainly is – particularly, do you hate yourself? I guess every gun shop should have a room with a couch and a chair with a trained questioner at least.

Thomas J. Zwemer

Augusta

Comments (8) 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.
dichotomy
31936
Points
dichotomy 01/06/13 - 01:12 am
7
1
"Thus, the Constitution

"Thus, the Constitution admits to some vetting as to military age; soundness of mind and body; and training in the proper use of the weapon of personal choice."

No, the Constitution says no such thing. The sentence structure tells all. It basically says "We might need a militia and in order to have one everyone has the right to own and carry arms." The SCOTUS pretty well separated the "militia" thingy from the right to keep and bear arms and that was the correct interpretation. In order to ever have a militia that could defend against an oppressive government the INDIVIDUAL has the right to keep and bear arms. We cannot be dependent on the National Guard to tell us who can keep and bear arms. Was the National Guard involved in confiscating weapons from private citizens in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans? Believe me, a well regulated militia has NOTHING to do with the right to keep and bear arms and any citizen who thinks it does only has to remember what they did to gun owners after Katrina in New Orleans. That was a prime example of why the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. You cannot trust the police or the National Guard during a disaster. Why??? Because they follow orders of politicians who are afraid of the people they govern and they will disarm private citizens at the first opportunity using any excuse.

That is why I will never surrender my weapons and I will never register them as NFA weapons.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 01/06/13 - 08:54 am
1
6
It's to protect the government from you,not the other way around

The right to keep and bear arms was added to provide a milita to protect the government from uprisings and invasion, not to protect you from the government. The current "gun nuts" and the NRA have its purpose completely wrong. If you read the writings and the laws passed in the early days of our country, the right to keep and bear arms was granted because all able bodied (white) men (with some exceptions) were required to be members of state militia, and were to be called into service by the President, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe" and"whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed" , not to protect people from the government. You were required to maintain a set amount of goods and small arms and the local and state militias were to maintain cannon and heavier weaponry, and individuals were required to train twice a year. The National Guard wasn't considered militia until 1903.

carcraft
25142
Points
carcraft 01/06/13 - 09:21 am
6
1
Yeh techfan that is why it is

Yeh techfan that is why it is in the bill of rights and the supreme court ruled it is an INDIVIDUAL right

Jon Lester
2285
Points
Jon Lester 01/06/13 - 10:33 am
5
1
200 years ago, everyone in Congress knew how to handle a gun.

Today, we have the likes of Dianne Feinstein (who famously demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge of safe gun handling, yet somehow got a concealed carry permit in a "may issue" state) purposefully exploit an ignorant public who don't know that "semi-automatic" is a very broad category, or that "assault weapons" are defined only by cosmetic and aesthetic appearance (and have been used in a very small percentage of gun crimes). Worst of all, people are being encouraged to look at gun people as some monolithic group to be distrusted and disparaged, when they're invariably the most responsible of all our citizens (and we're not all total wingnuts, thank you very much).

As much as I've hated having Rep. Broun and Sens. Isakson and Chambliss as my Congresspeople, I'm counting on them all to resist the Feinstein bill and any other attempt to further curtail the rights of compliant citizens to arm themselves with the firearms of their choice.

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 01/06/13 - 01:44 pm
3
0
What Did You Say??

Jon, are you foolin' with our minds? I can't believe you would go against ole' Diane....................

Little Lamb
45156
Points
Little Lamb 01/06/13 - 08:44 pm
3
0
The Point

I take issue with TechFan's convoluted reasoning for the purpose of a militia. The founding fathers' threw off the atrocities of a tyrannical government (England) via a bloody revolution, so therefore knew full well that it was entirely reasonable to expect that the new federal government could turn just as tyrannical. Therefore the second amendment safety valve so that citizens could form militias when necessary — government-sanctioned or not.

Likewise, I take issue with Mr. Zwemer's false assertion that the militias envisioned by the framers of the Constitution can be expressed only by today's National Guard. No, common citizens need assault weapons if they are to have a chance to throw off an oppressive federal government.

Do you wonder why the rebels in Syria are having such a hard time overthrowing their tyrannical government? I certainly don't know, but I can't help but imagine that some of those rebels might wish for some more assault weapons with some high-capacity clips.

Jon Lester
2285
Points
Jon Lester 01/07/13 - 01:34 am
0
0
Well, Jane, this is why I don't do party politics,

because certain issues have a way of bringing out some really ill-conceived notions from those I might otherwise caucus with.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs