Brush up on your gun rights

  • Follow Letters

In response to Victor Reilly’s letter (“Solve gun-rights problem,” April 17), Mr. Reilly needs to do his research.

He states that “our only militias are not public,” rather “fringe,” a.k.a. right-wing militias (my take). Next, to make his “progressive” point, he only uses the first part of the Second Amendment to suit his argument! My Lord, it’s only one sentence. Left out: “... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Next, he states “such militias haven’t existed for two centuries,” so why “fret” about them?

Here’s why:

• James Madison’s explanation of the Second Amendment in Federalist Paper No. 46: to the point of ensuring no standing federal army can exceed one-25th of militia, ensuring defeat of said army. (Also refer to the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, to the people’s right to overthrow a destructive government.)

• South Carolina Code of Laws Section 25-1-60, amended last December, defines the three levels of “current” militias. Both Mr. Reilly – if he’s in the right age group – and I are members of the unorganized militia!

• South Carolina Code of Laws Section 25-1-1890 allows the governor to activate the unorganized militia.

• Check pending South Carolina Senate Bill 247 for new provisions for our responsibilities.

• Check the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, a.k.a. the Dick Act, passed by Congress in 1902.

• Check the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report, U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, 97th Congress, 1982, with reference to militias, et al., under Title 10, U.S. Code 311(a).

Mr. Reilly apparently would further circumvent the Constitution by eliminating a Constitutional Convention, just to pass a law.

If his First Amendment right to communicate his views were tampered with, he’d scream bloody murder!

Ron Gaddis

Aiken, S.C.

Comments (19) 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.
RMSHEFF
15174
Points
RMSHEFF 05/06/13 - 09:10 am
3
1
Good letter....no need to add

Good letter....no need to add anything.

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 05/06/13 - 09:41 am
1
7
Assault weapons ban

Again; I have stated before, "The government just wants the assault weapons ban to be enforced again and a limitation on the size of bullet magazines !"

dichotomy
31662
Points
dichotomy 05/06/13 - 10:04 am
5
1
"Victor Reilly’s

"Victor Reilly’s letter"

'Nuff said.

rmwhitley
5532
Points
rmwhitley 05/06/13 - 10:08 am
0
0
If you
Unpublished

pay attention to Victor Reilly then you pay attention to Lowell Greenbaum. They need to keep their day jobs.

General Disarray
155
Points
General Disarray 05/06/13 - 10:25 am
1
7
Anyone who thinks that the
Unpublished

Anyone who thinks that the 2nd Amendment was about "giving the citizens of this country the firepower to compete with the governments firepower" should be placed under 24-hour surveillance. There's only one provision of the U.S. Constitution that speaks to citizens trading firepower with the government: Article III, Section 3 -- the treason provision.

The government wrote the 2nd Amendment. They wrote it in 1791 to keep slaves in check and provide back up for the army. Not to allow an uprising against itself, it was to protect itself. When you try to overthrow your government that is the exact definition of treason. We live in a free nation because it has been fought for and maintained by our government. Yes, our armed services are indeed our government.

You support the troops? You support our government.

Remember if you secede you are no longer granted the rights and privileges of being part of the United States, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment. Remember that.

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 05/06/13 - 10:57 am
0
0
Fine. Perhaps you and other
Unpublished

Fine. Perhaps you and other members of an unauthorized militia should be sent to Afghanistan, Iraq or, maybe, Syria...and, yes, the 1st amendment is has been "tampered with." There are laws against libel and slander, for instance.

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 05/06/13 - 11:05 am
1
8
GENERAL DISARRAY @ 10:25

GREAT COMMENT !! Said it better than I ever could have !

Bizkit
30182
Points
Bizkit 05/06/13 - 11:13 am
4
0
Say What??? It doesn't have

Say What??? It doesn't have anything to do with militias. The Supreme has already ruled in District of Columbia vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago that the constitution refers to the "individual" right to arms.

RMSHEFF
15174
Points
RMSHEFF 05/06/13 - 12:49 pm
4
0
The founders knew that man

The founders knew that man cannot be trusted with power over his fellow man so they devised a system of check and balances at every level. Governments can and do become corrupt as evidenced by history. There must be deterrents at every level because power corrupts.

Read the private writings of the founders and you will discover a healthy distrust of government and they made provisions to counter this corruption.

You can and have put your trust in man and government but for me I will put my trust in God alone.

As the prophet Jeremiah said ""The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. "

t3bledsoe
14250
Points
t3bledsoe 05/06/13 - 11:59 am
1
7
RMSHEFF @ 11:42

I understand your arguement about can not fully trust the government. The assault weapons ban and smaller magazines WILL NOT TAKE ANYBODY'S GUN !!

Bizkit
30182
Points
Bizkit 05/06/13 - 12:07 pm
4
0
The Constitution states the

The Constitution states the right to arms shall not be infringed. The SCOTUS supports that individual mandate. Tell me how limiting arms in any capacity is not an infringement-because by definition it is. Not that I am stating that I don't support regulations but the constitution is the constitution and the semantics is clear.

deestafford
25336
Points
deestafford 05/06/13 - 12:55 pm
4
1
Today we have two examples of people doing and not doing

their homework and research. The first is the letter writer who obviously did his homework and researched his topic well. The second being the comment by General Disarray who obviously shoots from the hip loaded with a faulty or uninformed memory.

RMSHEFF
15174
Points
RMSHEFF 05/06/13 - 01:05 pm
3
1
t3Bledsoe

If you don't think that all of the Liberal Progressive democrats don't want to ban guns you have not been paying attention. Look at the governor's and mayors of the most liberal states. They have so restricted gun ownership they may have well just outlawed guns. Just try to get a carry permit in New York or Washington DC or any other state run by liberals. People have been arrested for traveling with a gun even after they declared it. Their goal is banning everything but maybe a shotgun.

They cannot say outright that this is the goal but it is plain to see for those that have seen the M.O. in the past.

They don't enforce the gun laws we have now so why would you want more laws? It is felony for a convicted felon to "attempt" to purchase a gun. There are 9,000 people in 2010 that failed a background check who are felons on the run, and none of them were prosecuted.” More laws won't help if we don't enforce them.

General Disarray
155
Points
General Disarray 05/06/13 - 01:40 pm
1
6
They have a National Registry
Unpublished

They have a National Registry here in Canada AND background checks...and not ONE of THEIR rights has been infringed on.

The 2nd doesn't apply to every Tom, Dick or Harriett in America anyways. Well unless every gun nut is in fact IN a Militia which WAS necessary for a free state in the 1760's because why? Umm America wasn't a nation yet and the states, only 13 of them, had NO police force! So who better to secure the free state, than a Militia.. IF in fact the founding fathers were so intent on giving everyone gun rights, why were only those White, Wealthy land owners who owned slaves able to vote?

It was written in ink and very specific. Oh, and the Black, Wealthy land owner who owned slaves could vote back then too, but NO women! VERY SPECIFIC indeed. Yet in the 2nd, it states Individuals IN a Militia.. HMMMM Specific again indeed!! Not men, women and children, nor whites, etc. Just Individuals In a Militia!!

RMSHEFF
15174
Points
RMSHEFF 05/06/13 - 02:24 pm
2
1
According to the constitution

According to the constitution the second amendment only applies to "people" if you are a person it applies to you.

You had to be a "land owner" to vote. It might be a good ides to bring this one back. If you are not a land owner you might be more likely to support a tax on land ?

RMSHEFF
15174
Points
RMSHEFF 05/06/13 - 02:34 pm
2
2
The Second Amendment to the

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has become a target for Progressives and Liberals, who are determined to dismantle it. The Founders recognized the "right to keep and bear arms" as an inalienable right of self-defense to be protected by government rather than infringed or abridged by it. As Constitution signer John Dickinson affirmed, inalienable rights such as self-defense were rights "which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”

Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual.

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress

The advantage of being armed [is an advantage which] the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . . In the several kingdoms of Europe . . . the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison, U.S. President, Signer of the Constitution, a Framer of the Second Amendment in the first congress

The said Constitution [should] be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution”

The right . . . of bearing arms . . . is declared to be inherent in the people. Fisher Ames, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress

dstewartsr
20389
Points
dstewartsr 05/06/13 - 04:30 pm
6
1
"They have a National Registry here in

... CANADA."

Then stay there. Leave the debate about American rights to the unenslaved.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/06/13 - 04:50 pm
4
1
General Disarray...the
Unpublished

General Disarray...the Constitution wasn't written in the 1760's. Also, you stated " Yet in the 2nd, it states Individuals IN a Militia." This statement is simply not true. If so, show us where is says that the right of the people IN a militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

RMSHEFF
15174
Points
RMSHEFF 05/06/13 - 05:13 pm
4
1
Fun facts the gun control

Fun facts the gun control folks don't want to talk about!

California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people. California has some of the strictes gun laws.
Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and saw 699 total gun murders in 2011 — nearly half that of California — and a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000. Texas has twice as many gun as California.

Gage Creed
16442
Points
Gage Creed 05/06/13 - 08:23 pm
2
1
"They have a National

"They have a National Registry here in Canada AND background checks...and not ONE of THEIR rights has been infringed on."

And that is important why?

Hey...just how heavy is that chip? Just askin'?

nocnoc
40308
Points
nocnoc 05/06/13 - 08:40 pm
3
0
myfather15
52700
Points
myfather15 05/06/13 - 09:50 pm
1
0
@Bizkit

Stop trying to confuse liberals with the ACTUAL Supreme Court Interpretation of the Constitution. We are suppose to take their rhetoric, such as "General Disarray" as the word of God. Their belief and interpretation of the constitution is MUCH higher and more important than the Supreme Courts. Don't you understand that?

myfather15
52700
Points
myfather15 05/06/13 - 09:59 pm
1
0
@RMSHEFF

Do you honestly believe liberals give a hoot about what those old white men had to say? After reading General disarray's intentionally misleading interpretation of the Constitution and the DOI, I have nothing to say to such a person. Well, besides they need to stay in Canada. BUT, these are the types of people who are more frequently becoming professors in Colleges and teaching our children. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out this person is a professor.

Darby
24763
Points
Darby 05/06/13 - 10:27 pm
4
0
"Again; I have stated before, "The government

just wants the assault weapons ban to be enforced again and a limitation on the size of bullet magazines !"."

.
The fact that the government wants another ban is reason enough to deny it!

When a majority of the people want such a ban, then it may be time to negotiate a constitutional amendment to revoke or amend the Second Amendment.

A long and arduous process, by the way. As it was intended to be.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Cops seek stolen truck suspects

Police said the driver failed to stop for lights and siren and soon after left the road, striking a parked vehicle and then a home in the 5200 block of Silver Fox Way, according to a news release.
Search Augusta jobs