Solve gun-rights problem

  • Follow Letters

When the Second Amendment was written at our nation’s birth, the American Revolution had just been fought with militias, so the reference to them and their role in the Second Amendment made sense. Now, our only militias, none public, are peopled largely by fringe groups, and our security since the Civil War has been the police and the Department of Defense.

The amendment begins with the words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... .” Being well regulated is not at all relevant to those calling themselves militias.

Militias, as so written, have not existed for two centuries. Why, then, fret about militias in detailing the right to bear arms, which has hamstrung efforts to end the horror of mass murders? Why do we think the only way to solve this problem is by the near-impossible path of amending the Constitution?

Why can’t Congress do what is needed by passing a law making it clear that our standing armed forces – including, in particular, its reserves – have in fact replaced the militias? Anyone simply wanting to be directly involved in using military weapons can volunteer by joining the reserves, and transfer all their war-fighting weapons to the reserves.

The law making that clear also could limit possession of firearms in citizen’s hands to those suited just for sportsmanlike hunting and, say, less-than-10-round handguns suited for personal protection.

This would replace the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

I find it appalling that a rational society still debates whether any of its citizens has the right to own weapons such as were used last year in Connecticut and Colorado. They all must be bought up and transferred to the police and the military. The price paid would be well worth it.

The National Rifle Association’s solution is to just keep the wrong people from possessing these war-fighting weapons. That stands zero chance of solving the problem.

Given the ballot, we do not need the bullet. The only step that would work is to end the perceived right for any civilian to own war-fighting weapons.

Comments (59) 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.
Truth Matters
6624
Points
Truth Matters 04/17/13 - 03:12 am
3
9
Guns..

Given the political landscape around here, you might get away with this position were your name "O" Reilly instead of "J" Reilly (smile). Seriously, I do agree with a lot of what you have written here. You gave great perspective on the intent of the Founding Fathers. My brother and I laughed out loud one day when we speculated how our now-deceased grandmother would react to a smartphone and facetime! Likewise, I doubt the Founding Fathers could fathom weapons such as what we now have.

jkline
527
Points
jkline 04/17/13 - 05:34 am
14
2
We are the militia

The whole point of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was to keep military weapons in the hands of civilians, as a check and balance to the government, which the Constitution empowers to raise armies. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and any infringement on the right for civilians to keep and bear military arms is unconstitutional.

ymnbde
9571
Points
ymnbde 04/17/13 - 06:18 am
13
4
...shall not be infringed

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

freedom of speech only got one sixth the prominence of the right to bear arms. Without the right to bear arms, the rest of the constitution is useless.

Liberals who want to take my gun made a right to privacy that protects the mentally ill ahead of their victims, and that causes me to rabidly defend the right to defend myself from those people.

Liberals who want to take my gun coddle criminals, and that causes me to rabidly defend the right to defend myself from those people.

Liberals who want to take my gun don't care about the hundreds of young black males murdering hundreds of young black males, and that causes me to rabidly defend the right to defend myself from those people.

Liberals who want to take my gun won't stop at my gun, history has shown such people will go on to control every aspect of my life, and that causes me to rabidly defend the right to defend myself from those people.

I'll dispense with the "cold dead fingers" part.

carcraft
25252
Points
carcraft 04/17/13 - 06:25 am
13
2
The Supreme coourt has spoken

The Supreme coourt has spoken on this issue and the right to own guns is AN INDIVIVDUAL RIGHT. You need to amend the constitution. Of course fcts and logic seldom enter liberal gun grabing debate. Why not enforce existing gun laws greater than 4% of the time? Oh, probably beceause then no political points to be made!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 07:08 am
11
5
"Why can’t Congress do what
Unpublished

"Why can’t Congress do what is needed by passing a law making it clear that our standing armed forces – including, in particular, its reserves – have in fact replaced the militias? "

Well...that would require amending the constitution, because the 2nd amendment clearly states as a matter of fact that the militia is NECESSARY. It is written nowhere that the militia has been replaced by the standing army.

Also the writer states:
The law making that clear also could limit possession of firearms in citizen’s hands to those suited just for sportsmanlike hunting and, say, less-than-10-round handguns suited for personal protection.

This would replace the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

Well...sorry but a LAW can not replace a Constitutional Amendment. Laws must be written within the constraints of the Constitution. The writer should take a class in civics, and he would understand this.

Little Lamb
45321
Points
Little Lamb 04/17/13 - 08:08 am
11
1
Old Dog

I am glad Mr. J'Reilly submitted this letter. It shows he has been thinking about the Constitution – something that liberals seldom do.

When formulating a paradigm new to the observer, one has to wander down several mental pathways, most of which lead to dead ends, as if walking a labyrinth. That is where Mr. J'Reilly finds himself at this time. But I salute him in his journey. He may find the truth one day.

United States citizens today are regulated more than at any time in our history. Regulations spew forth from the bowels of Congress and the bowels of the executive branch faster than we can keep up with. We are not the "free State" envisioned by Adams and Jefferson.

Perhaps as Mr. J'Reilly continues his study, he might stumble upon the reason militias are necessary. He might even read the Declaration of Independence. Some of the relevant text there includes this important truth: . . . (G)overnments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, (i.e., God-given unalienable rights – LL) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Individual citizens, both civilian and military, must maintain, assert, and fight for their rights to keep and bear arms so that they can attempt to overthrow their government once it has become too tyrannical to bear. Mr. J'Reilly may come to see it some day.

nocnoc
41300
Points
nocnoc 04/17/13 - 08:06 am
10
2
I do not trust any politician

I do not trust any politician with an agenda that calls for modifications to the Bill of Rights. Why? Look not further than this example.

Obama and Bloomberg are spending millions of taxpayer dollars to violate the Bill of Rights by spreading false data to win over GUN CONTROL Votes. This claims does not come from some paranoid bunker hiding extremist. This arises from their most recent false claim that America’s police officers want gun bans and gun control…

The problem is a January to March 2013 survey of nearly 15,000 active and retired law enforcement officers shows that an overwhelming majority of America’s policemen and women do NOT support Obama’s gun control agenda in any fashion.

In fact, over 71% of law enforcement officers say Obama’s gun ban will have no effect in stop violent crime. An 80% say that more background checks will also have no effect in stopping criminals.

What do police say?
91% of law enforcement officers say that prosecutions and mandatory sentencing is the best way to combat violent crime.

The problem is that Barack Obama has refused to consider any other viable options, he wants the guns, not a working solution.

dichotomy
32125
Points
dichotomy 04/17/13 - 08:10 am
9
2
"The amendment begins with

"The amendment begins with the words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."

AND THEN THERE IS A COMMA.....followed by...."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

There was a reason for it then and we may be closer to the time today where it is needed than any time in our history.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 08:12 am
6
3
In the spirit of fairness,
Unpublished

In the spirit of fairness, nocnoc, would you post a link to where you got your percentages. While I believe you, I don't want you to be like the liberal posters here who simply make up percentages that sound good to back up their agenda.

nocnoc
41300
Points
nocnoc 04/17/13 - 08:25 am
9
1
Yes the world has changed

But our founding fathers were clear.
There shall be no large standing military in peace time.

BTW: remember our founding fathers set up a divided political power base between Federal and States, where the states had control.

But the states no longer have control over their own State Guard units.

Before Income Taxes and 1000's of other hidden taxes imposed on Americans by The Fed's, the Fed's looked to the states for funds. Another State control removed.

Since President /Gen. Eisenhower warned us beware of the Military Industrial Complex, we have been at war, instilling Peace, world wide every few years racking up more and more debt for $400M Jets,$2B bombers, $700 hammers.

Personally I would have no problems joining a GA. State and locally controlled Citizens Militia as part of being a resident.

I heard it once said.
Nothing scare the Government more than a former solider.

Truth Matters
6624
Points
Truth Matters 04/17/13 - 08:30 am
4
7
There you go again...

A few days ago some agreed that rather than focusing on the "how" of violence we need to focus on the "why." We'll that lasted no longer than a NEW YORK minute.

@Ymnbde we are back to the topic of blacks killing blacks with guns.

There is such a thing as whites killing whites and the victims are no less dead. If one is white You are more likely to be killed by a white mass murderer than a young black male! Or for that matter someone in your own family, as are most people.

bubbasauce
20573
Points
bubbasauce 04/17/13 - 08:32 am
4
1
Good post Dichotomy and I

Good post Dichotomy and I agree with Humble Angela also with stating where they got the facts.I still agree with the percentages though.

Riverman1
82413
Points
Riverman1 04/17/13 - 08:32 am
5
1
Three Charters of Freedom

The whole notion that we can somehow circumvent one of the "Three Charters of Freedom" by some type of Congressional-Executive trickery makes me shudder. Our government by the people rests on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Riverman1
82413
Points
Riverman1 04/17/13 - 08:42 am
6
1
The term millitia is a loose

The term millitia is a loose one, too. You would be wrong to believe it means a National Guard type organization. We have citizens with the right to bear arms who are elderly, women with small children, disabled and so on who can't be a part of a formal organization requiring going to gatherings and so on. Thus it means a member of a militia can also be an elderly gentleman defending his own home and PERSON alone and not making meetings where troops march around.

deestafford
26543
Points
deestafford 04/17/13 - 08:43 am
3
1
It's too bad the letter writer has not done in-depth reading of

what our Founding Fathers had to say about the Second Amendment as they were drafting it. Let me give him a few examples:
If the framers of the Second Amendment had intended it to apply to the right of a state to maintain a militia, they would have used the word "state" instead of "people." The rest of the Bill of Rights is very precise in using the word "people" when referring to individuals and "state" when referring to the states. There is no good reason to believe the Second Amendment would be the sole exception.
The text of James Madison's original draft of the Second Amendment is also revealing. It read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country."
"Well regulated" does not refer to government regulation. It meant equiping and going through military exercises and drills as often as necessary.
As far as the idea that it is only for state militias is a strange interpretation of the amendment because the Constitution had already provided for the existence and arming of a militia in Article I, Section 8.

Final point is why do people have a tendancy to confer wisdom on those who serve in Washington? Truth be known the legislators don't even write or read most of the bills they propose. They are written by the staffs who are entrenched in the bowels of the beast. As a recent example look at the upcoming immigration bill. The senators themselves don't know what exactly is in it because they are waiting for the staffs to complete the drafting of the bill and yet they want to give only one day of hearings. Please don't put your faith and safety of your family in the hands of the nuts we have in Congress. Unfortunately, it is a terrible system but it is the best in the world.

RMSHEFF
15843
Points
RMSHEFF 04/17/13 - 08:58 am
8
1
Poor sense of reasoning

Victor says we should " and transfer all their war-fighting weapons to the reserves." These government run military groups he suggest we turn our weapons over to are the very ones that the founder wanted "the people" to be able to resist if necessary. Thanks GOD for (as Riley said) the near-impossible path of amending the Constitution. This "near impossible path" was designed to protect the republic from folks like Victor. I think we don't realize how smart and thoughtful our founders were.

Riverman1
82413
Points
Riverman1 04/17/13 - 09:11 am
6
1
Don't Wipe Your Feet on the Constitution

If you don't like the Constitution, change it legally, don't wipe your feet on it.

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 04/17/13 - 09:28 am
1
11
Well, so much for the subject of my next LTE.

This letter can not be more right than an outstanding 100% ! I could not have written any better of an LTE ! I agree about the idea of making a law that states exactly what a militia is. I believe our militia IS INDEED THE MILITARY AND POLICE ! Why would any "law abiding citizen" even need high volumn magazines, asault rifles, or "machine guns" ?

Little Lamb
45321
Points
Little Lamb 04/17/13 - 09:36 am
4
1
Why?

Why, you ask, t3bledsoe? Well, because they might need that kind of firepower to revolt against their tyrannical government. That's what the U.S. Constitution seeks to protect.

crkgrdn
2287
Points
crkgrdn 04/17/13 - 09:48 am
3
1
Another victim of public education

There are Truths and then there are truths and lies.
In any age the people are responsible for seeing that their civil liberties are secured. We try to do that through the formation of governments and electing that government's officials.
Do not make the mistake that we are too modern or are too technologically advanced to not be affected by what happened in 1776 and 1787.
By the summer of 1914 Europeans and Americans thought they could prevent general wars. And, they overlooked their failure to conquer nature when the Titanic sunk.

RMSHEFF
15843
Points
RMSHEFF 04/17/13 - 09:55 am
5
1
t3bledsoe

Our founders had great fear of a "all powerful" government. This was the reason for the revolution and the reason they wanted a counter balance to a government they feared would end up with to much power. Like the one we have today. This is why many of those in power would like to take the gun from the people. Did you know all the Islamic groups in America are also in favor of Americans being unarmed and support liberals like yourself.

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 04/17/13 - 10:10 am
1
6
Little Lamb

As for our current government is concerned, they are stupid and selfish, not tyrannical. I understand your point about if our government becomes tyrannical, but that is the way these off-the-radar survivalists think. Couldn't we fight for our freedoms with less deadly guns ?

allhans
23546
Points
allhans 04/17/13 - 10:13 am
5
1
Maybe some should do some

Maybe some should do some research on the tyrannical governments in the world...see if that is what they are asking for.

nofanofobama
6809
Points
nofanofobama 04/17/13 - 10:28 am
6
1
the 2nd amendment is clearly

the 2nd amendment is clearly designed to keep us free from an abusive govt..foriegn or domestic..anyone who think that a govt cannot become corrupt should look no further than the town hall. govts are made of people...people are corruptable...who here would argue that MOST our national..perhaps state and local politicians are not corrupt..when that corruption becomes to common and abusive...we will thank our forefathers for the 2nd amendment..

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 10:53 am
6
2
" Couldn't we fight for our
Unpublished

" Couldn't we fight for our freedoms with less deadly guns ?"

If it is your freedom you are fighting for, why would you want "less deadly" guns.....especially when your enemy isn't going to use the same?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 10:53 am
5
2
But to answer your question,
Unpublished

But to answer your question, YES, we COULD fight for our freedom with less deadly guns......if we wanted to lose.

itsanotherday1
42186
Points
itsanotherday1 04/17/13 - 10:59 am
5
1
Check out 15-18

http://www.nacoponline.org/22nd.pdf

The 2011 survey shows that 77% of Chiefs and Sheriffs surveyed support the NRA agenda of H.R.822, universal reciprocity among states. 98% support civilian ownership of firearms by the law-abiding. 74% believe law-abiding armed citizens can be of assistance to professional law enforcement. This is what happens when you poll actual cops, rather than a small number of big city police chiefs who join Joyce funded front organizations.

ymnbde
9571
Points
ymnbde 04/17/13 - 12:03 pm
2
2
truth matters it's okay to put your hands in the sand

it's okay to put your feet in the sand, and as Zak Brown says, it's okay to put your a in the sand.
But keep your head out of the sand.
There is a numerical chance that i will be killed by a "white mass murderer" but that number is a decimal point followed by several 0's. More than several 0's.

A small article in the paper the next day, perhaps part of a minute in a tv news show, then black murders are forgotten.
If "whites killed whites" or families killed their own members at such levels (your assertion), there would be a media outcry. The media would lead with those stories, even ahead of gay marriage and gun control and immigration.
The government obviously redlines black neighborhoods.
New York City started stop-and-frisk, and the murder rate went down dramatically. Many young black males are now alive that wouldn't be without stop-and-frisk, yet liberals are crying racism. Who is the real racist?
Young black males are the victims in our ineffective education system. They are left uneducated and unable to get a good job. Who is the real racist?
A conspiracy theorist would have a field day with the evidence showing liberals do not care about black-on-black crime.
And actually, so would any sane person.
When the government protects all people equally, we can have an honest dialogue about my second amendment.
My God given, not government given, second amendment.

Little Lamb
45321
Points
Little Lamb 04/17/13 - 12:04 pm
3
2
A Matter of Degree

I was thinking about t3bledsoe's question:

Couldn't we fight for our freedoms with less deadly guns ?

There really aren't degrees of dead. You either are or you are not. When you speak of "less deadly guns," are you referring to Nerf guns?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 01:05 pm
5
2
LL....do you think t3bledsoe
Unpublished

LL....do you think t3bledsoe would mind being shot with a gun that only holds 5 rounds?

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs