No longer a need for people to bear arms First published: Sunday, July 22, 2007
Regarding the July 12 editorial on guns, investigations and usage:
The Second Amendment says, "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."
The Constitution does not say people should have shotguns, rifles or handguns for any purpose other than to maintain the security of a free state.
Since that amendment, enacted 216 years ago, we have formed states, cities, towns and villages that are empowered to keep the peace and to bear arms for that purpose.
People do not need guns. Guns are used to kill or maim animals and humans.
Giving legal authorities the ability to investigate, arrest and punish those who illegally sell firearms is only one of many steps that should be enacted and enforced -- notwithstanding the pitiful pleas of the National Rifle Association.
That's a real nice argument but when it takes the police department 20 min to one half hour to answer your 911 call I'll just call my 2 friends Smith and Wesson as they're always around to help protect me and my family.
Apparently the cops aren't doing such a great job with handling crime, and the government clearly can't stop all terrorist attacks...so I will just keep myself armed as I guess I'm the most capable of protecting my family and myself. I don't have a political or union agenda!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I would like to be able to continue to bear arms to go get me some bear meat....when that crap coming into our country from other countries and the crap that we are giving our own livestock...cooks us like a chicken during our next mammogram/CT scan/MRI.........what do we do???
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The Second Amendment says, "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."
The Constitution does not say people should have shotguns, rifles or handguns for any purpose other than to maintain the security of a free state.
What the heck is this Mr. Blanchard talking about? And is he not in fact talking out of both sides of his mouth? First, it states in the second amendment:'THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' .....
and then he goes on to say, 'THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE SHOTGUNS, RIFLES OR HANDGUNS FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO MAINTAIN THE SECUIRYT OF A FREE STATE'.
I don't know what the hell this guys talking about? What is he doing, making up his own amendment?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Maybe he thinks we should all have M-16s and Cannon. They wouldn't fall under that. And oh, by the way, Mr. Blanchard, those people that are in office to protect us? Well, we haven't actually USED the right in this manner in that amount of time, but it is there in case we actually need to march on these people and get them to straighten out.
Quoted Text
Since that amendment, enacted 216 years ago, we have formed states, cities, towns and villages that are empowered to keep the peace and to bear arms for that purpose.
OK, what state, city, town and/or village do you know that has it's military, as Mr. Blanchard points out the town has this power? Is he talking about the police unions, which themselves may need to be marched on?
The anti-gun nuts never tell you about the little town in Georgia that passed a law where everyone has to carry a gun. They have the lowest crime rate in the country because no criminal in his right mind would ever come into this town and try to rob anything for fear of being shot.
You are correct-o there shadow. Same thing in Texas!
They can all bit** and moan all they want about guns, but guns aren't going away any too soon. First...there is too much money to be made off of them. At least the government can get somewhat of a handle of the 'honest' people who purchase guns through registration. And second, all of the 'criminals' would own one anyways. They would get them from their corrupt cop friends. And third, if just the military or police/union were the only ones with guns, this would truly be a 'policed state'!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Access to data on legal gun ownership is a threat to privacy rights First published: Sunday, July 29, 2007
Sunday, July 15, the Times Union published a second editorial criticizing the recent bipartisan actions by Congress to deny access to federal gun sales and ownership data to local elected officials and police departments, unless the data is requested during the prosecution of a specific crime committed with a specific gun. The editorial asked, "Really now, what sensible person would resist legislation that would give local governments and police agencies access to data tracking gun sales?"
I can't claim to be the most sensible person around (witness my quixotic efforts to influence the Times Union editorial board on matters like this), but I care very much about this issue.
Our constitutional, individual right to defend ourselves, our families and our homes from unlawful assault, and to personally own firearms for the purpose of this defense, is fundamental to the civic responsibilities of the citizens of this nation. It seems obvious to me that whether I own a gun, what gun I own, how I obtained it, or any other data pertaining to this particular piece of my property is my own private business and certainly not that of our local politicians.
Unfortunately, New York state requires me to be licensed to possess a handgun, and thus local governments and law enforcement agencies already have access to most of that data for that particular firearm. Many other states do not require such disclosure, at least without cause. Thus the concern of so many congressmen and women to represent their constituents in good faith in this policy area.
So there are serious issues of privacy, constitutional rights, and civic responsibilities involved here. I ask you to respect those concerns of mine, even as I respect our mutual right to free speech, which I know is a matter dear to your own heart.
Guns are not what makes society violent First published: Thursday, August 2, 2007
I read with some interest Raymond Blanchard's July 22 letter, "No longer a need for people to bear arms." The argument that the Second Amendment is 216 years old and is obsolete because we have states, towns, etc., empowered with law enforcement who can use firearms to protect us is simply naive and ill-conceived. The Second Amendment is no more made obsolete by modern society than is the First Amendment, which is also 216 years old. Now that we have radio, TV, Internet and massive network conglomerates supplying us with professionally crafted free speech, would anyone suggest the First Amendment is obsolete? As far as the law enforcement entities of states, towns, etc., protecting us: I submit for consideration the case of home invasion that recently took place in Chesire, Conn. The details are too horrible to relate, but three are dead and one injured in this incident. As is the norm, law enforcement was not there to intervene, only to react after the fact. Could a firearm in the home possibly have helped this unfortunate family defend itself against this horrific assault? Mr. Blanchard would deny them such opportunity for defense. I find that appalling.
Violence is something we can all agree to detest. Sadly, violence and guns are often equated. But the truth is that guns are simply tools and, like most tools, can be used properly or improperly. Most of the arguments regarding guns in our society are, in my opinion, based on the frustration we have with violence and crime, which seems so prevalent. But the reality is that the causes of violence are complex. To try to simply blame guns is to create a convenient smoke screen that misdirects the energy we should be using to try to find true solutions to violence in our society.
I direct those readers with an interest in this subject to the well-articulated "Pistol Regulation: Its Principles and History," written in 1930 by Karl T. Frederick. It appeared in the American Journal of Police Science in 1931 but its content is just as relevant today as it was then. The article can be found on the Internet at: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/ Frederick1.html.
Many people in the rural areas omn guns but it seems to me that all the deaths committed by people with guns are in the high crime areas of the cities by people who use illegal guns.
That is because the people in rural areas have a greater respect for guns and usually teach their childred to respect guns as well.
As with Rotterdam an other surrounding communities, there are gun clubs as well where it becomes a community of people who DO respect and take responsibility for their arms.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Logged
