Letter: Guns and Second Amendment

I was bemused by the picture The Advocate printed recently, showing gun advocates holding signs that read: “The Second falls, the rest will too.” Since then, I have been racking my brains to remember the (no doubt multitudinous) instances in our 236-year history when citizens’ unrestricted possession of guns has protected our basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For some strange reason, I could not think of even one. Even a Google search only turned up statistics on the hundreds of thousands of Americans — husbands, wives, parents, children, even infants — who have been permanently deprived of all rights because this nation refuses to regulate firearms.

It must be clear to even the most literal thinker that the Founders created the Second Amendment to provide for the greatest threat the fledgling nation faced: the danger of being invaded or recolonized by a strong foreign power due to a youthful America’s lack of a standing army. Only a citizen army of trained militia could protect that young America — and it is so stated in the amendment, a fact rarely mentioned by gun advocates. Despite the nonsense we see on social media daily, the Founders did not anticipate or endorse random citizens taking up arms against the legitimate representatives of a democratically elected government.

I have also heard a lot of talk recently about Nazi Germany’s disarmament of their citizens, talk which ignores the fact that the Third Reich actually slackened gun-control laws left over from the Treaty of Versailles. Instead of fighting against reasonable regulation of firearms in America — a concept that enjoys broad support in the electorate — perhaps right-wing gun advocates might turn a critical eye to those in their own party who share Hitler’s “conservative values”: hatred for foreigners, contempt for minorities, disdain for faiths other than their own, a need to keep women in their place — “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” (Children, Kitchen, Church) — and a passionate idolatry of all things militaristic. How ironic that these are the very politicians that the radical NRA scrambles to endorse.

Nancy Keegan

homemaker

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by HRoark - 27/02/2013

#1Fan, that's not what she said.

2) Comment by #1Fan - 27/02/2013

How ironic, Ms. Keagan, that your letter claiming to not be able to find even one instance of gun ownership protecting ones rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shares the the front page with an article in which an armed home invader was shot in a firefight with the occupant of that home.

3) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

The interwebs are no place for a reasonable discussion of anything. is this news?

4) Comment by Whatchange - 26/02/2013

I guess I should of added jedleland to the list of those as to why we will never have reasonable discussions on gun control.

5) Comment by nimby? - 26/02/2013

for now . fact ; the government does know who I am , where I live , what weapons I own , their make , model and serial #s . neither the government nor I have any reason to fear one another . statistics are that the majority of gun crimes/violence/deaths are committed in urban areas , black on black , with handguns with no identifiable markings . why not fight the problem where it exists ?

6) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

if any gun confiscation were to occur, it would follow the model used in the UK and australia - an amnesty, and buyback, followed by the imposition of penalty for guns apprehended following the amnesty period. i know old gun nuts get all excited and aroused fantasizing about standing in their front yards heroically fighting off federal goon with their grandfathers peacemaker in one hand and the flag and/or bible in the other. but things dont happen like that. armies dont go door to door, funded by wealthy leftist plutocrats. its fantasy. it wont happen here in any of our lifetimes or those of our children or grandchildren. it will take a constitutional amendment and thats generations off. i hope my grandchildren's grandchildren are around to see it happen though. we passed what, 26 of them already? until then, i guess its the same old same old

7) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

such silly scare-tactic qualifiers remind me of the horror movies of the 50s "They dont know where you live - OR DO THEY?" "Youre safe from the Blob - FOR NOW!" " the alien menace is vanquished and all is back to normal, but WATCH THE SKIES!". Just silly.

8) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

FOR NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

9) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

then we are all agreed that we are safe from the prying gun confiscators of the left.

10) Comment by nimby? - 26/02/2013

jedleland , I do agree the government is not coming for your guns , for now . if such an action were to take place it would more likely be from a democratic administration . they would need complete cooperation from the military and the support of the wealthy .

11) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

'soft-headed sob-sister sophistry' - that was some fine alliteration, mind you

12) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

nope, no paranoid gun fetishists in these parts, no sir.

13) Comment by cfg60 - 26/02/2013

Can anyone submit a workable plan for criminal disarmament? If so, I will be glad to consider it. Civilian disarmament only empowers the thugs and punishes the innocent. You may entrench yourself in parchment laws to the teeth without altering your status as a vulnerable victim. In a world governed by the aggressive use of force only an opposite and greater force will do and nothing else matters. But what's the use? The true "gun nuts" are the ones incapable of distinguishing between inanimate hardware and the demented thug holding it. The true issue is that the politicians promoting civilian disarmament don't care a fig about safety at all. Their tacit goal is to remove impediments to their illiberal control of the population and to that end they will distort and twist this issue beyond recognition. A government that fears their constituents bearing arms is a government unworthy of trust. This letter is more of the soft headed sob-sister sophistry by the invincibly ignorant whose naive mindset suits the purposes of their controlling collectivist overlords.

14) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

leaver od? "leader of"

15) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

btw, incase anyone is even bothering to read at this point, here is the NYT piece written by former australian PM, john howard, leaver od the liberal-national coalition. in australia, theliberal party is centr-right, while the labor party is center-left. they are a paragmatic people, with little use for ideologuies and extremists (no tea party ***** there, moderation and centrism is something they value). as a result, he was able to take meaningful action, despite his conservative credentials and his rural coalition partners. No flaming liberal he, but no far right gun zealot either. just a sensible bloke. here is what he wrote: "IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States. I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament. Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania. After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy. Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.) Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons. To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States. City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative. The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife. Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australia’s northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural. The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my government’s decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws. For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this. In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996. Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control. John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

16) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

FOR NOW!!!

17) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

all joking aside, theres no doubt the 2nd amendment hysteria far outweights the pathetically modest suggestions for gun control so far put forth by our timid politicians. no politician has the power or cajones to make any sort of reasonable stab at effective gun control measures. the gun-nut lobby is simply too strong. look at the laughable comments right here everyday. all sorts of doom and gloom about federal agents and tyrants and drones and 'come and get it' and other juvenalia. and none that i can see generated by inner city youths (who might actually live in a dangersous environment every single day), but by suburban and rural older men, very safe in their enclaves and bubbles, but feaful nonetheless and mourning a manhood passed. noone is coming for your guns, nor have they ever. those of us who have chosen not to live in fear have long since become accustomed to an armed and dangerous society that doesnt mind sacrificing the odd classroom or movie theater full of innocents so that these same fearful fogies can be at peace with their peacemakers. if 20 2nd graders dead in a room cant change some minds and instigate some humanitarian action in this the richest of all nations, then nothing ever will. and it hasnt. your guns are quite safe.

18) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

i meant Topeka street, obviously. odd that a liberal media, controlled by obama himself, should report such a thing.

19) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

by the way, men-who-lean-on-guns-to-remind-them-of-what-a-"real"-man-should-be, your missing a golden opportunity to make the case for universal armamaent this very day. a man was shot trying to break into a home on Teopka street here in BR. The homeowner fired at the intruder, who was also armed and fired back, The intruder was hit, fled, and died moments later. No charges expected. how could you let this anecdote go? its tailor made. no word yet on wether the intruder as a burglar, or federal agent engaging in left-wing tyrrany.

20) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

put away the fear, put away the guns. its just that simple.

21) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

the nra may only have 4 milion members but it remains the most powerful lobby in the country, and its members are vocal, organised, and have deep pockets. thats what matters, not the 4 million. as for genitalia, the word emasculation has long since been expanded in definition beyond that literal meaning. in its common expanded modern form, it has everything to do with the issue at hand. as for age, take a look at the comments here the last few weeks, see who it is with dark tidings of drone assaults and govt takeover, and ask yourself if these are the comments of wide eyed young up and comers, or not. we the people must suffer thousands of gun deaths a year to alleviate the emasculation and withered self esteem of fearful old men and the dealers who profit from that fear. plenty of guns in the hands of young men in the hood, but i dont think those guys spend much time lobbying congress.

22) Comment by nimby? - 26/02/2013

less than 4 percent of gun owners in the U.S. belong to the NRA . possession of a firearm has nothing to do with being old or a lack of genitalia . why can't we speak of responsible gun ownership ? still trying to figure out why adults knowingly allowed a felon living under their roof to possess a weapon with a 2 year old present ...

23) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

perhaps if our governing bodies werent so in the thrall of the most powerful lobby in the land, and its supporting structure of millions of fearful, emasculated old men and prosperous dealers, then a humantiarian effort might make our nation a safer place, if only a little. likely? no, not at all, to our collective shame.

24) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

as was uttered in a popular tune from the hit parades of yesteryear "it takes more than combat boots to make a man, takes more than a licence for a gun"

25) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

but to go to mr/ms DMJs point, one thing that UK criminals do is turn athletic starter pistols into real guns with crude engineering changes. BUT (its a big but) ammo is nigh on impossible to get anywhere. SO, criminals often forge their own crude ammo, which as often backfires or doesnt work or can gravely harm the shooter. RESULT? even crooks with guns dont often actually shoot them for fear of bad home made ammo. even the conservative former PM of australia came out last week expressing exasperated astonishment that our country continues to let people die by the thousands, including kids, without doing something. australia had its own massacre, but right and left came together, realised dead kids were more of a humanitarian issue, and put away the guns. result? no more massacres. there is right wing in every modern country and there is crazy paranoid right wing. guess what kind other countries consider regular conservatives and govern usually responsibly, and which we are stuck with.

26) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

what happened in egland following the dunblane massacre of elementary school children was the illegalisation of almost all personal weapons (with exceptions for things like farmers shotguns or sporting arms). Very strict. Gues what? not more massacres. that was 20 years ago. and that nation of 60 million had fewer deaths by guns that baton rouge last year. is the govt taking over? are people undle tyrranical thumb? is freedom gone forever? dont be silly they are as free as us and in some ways more free - free to not worry about being shot, free to not worry about black govt drones and helicopters and general paranoia, free to send their kids to school without worrying about firarms or metal detectors.

27) Comment by DMJ - 26/02/2013

Whatnow, no one thinks anyone is going to register an illegally purchased gun. The idea is to thwart the illegal purchase in the first place. If people selling guns were required to report purchases and check backgrounds, then criminals might just find it a little more difficult to get their hands on guns, which would lessen the need for everyone else to have a gun as well. Make sense? I've said this a million times.... no one has a constitutional right to SELL a gun. We'd be idiots not to advocate for stricter oversight of those who, albeit eventually, provide firearms to those who use them to rape, steal and kill.

28) Comment by nimby? - 26/02/2013

Tea , until we can come to a mutual understanding , as long as misinformation is coming from both sides , a lack of respect , trust there can be no rational dialogue . DMJ , not my words either ...

29) Comment by Sandy - 26/02/2013

1ryben, you do realize that the founding fathers allowed (and even encouraged at times) the private ownership of cannons?

30) Comment by bourbon-soda - 26/02/2013

They can't regulate the criminals so they want to regulate law- abiding citizens. It's a lot safer.

31) Comment by Whatnow - 26/02/2013

Who's regulating the criminals that we have now? And I still say that it's living in a la-la world to think that the criminals are going to register their guns. They buy them from the underground and from each other. All this broohaha is because of the stupidity of a mother who thought she could trust her son. You don't hear anything about the numerous killing of children everyday in cities like Chicago and Detroit. Maybe it would be different if they put all those children in a pile.

32) Comment by 1ryben - 26/02/2013

There is no way, no matter how intelligent, the founders envisioned the types of guns we have now. Nothing will ever change as long as reasonable restrictions and regulations are equated with "they're taking our freedoms, they coming for my guns." I agree with DMJ that many of the folks against controlling gun violence sound selfish. Now about this tank...whatchange, you buy it and ill pay for gas one weekend, sounds like fun.

33) Comment by DMJ - 26/02/2013

"gun totting rednecks , right wing gun nuts or whatever else..." All your words, bub. And Corvette Racer, we're the paranoid ones? We're not the ones sleeping with guns under our pillow like Officer Tackelberry.

34) Comment by Whatchange - 26/02/2013

As I read the comments here I have come to the conclusion there will never be reasonable discussions on gun control, each side goes to the extreme. Now on the other hand, I sure wouldn't mind owning a tank, don't need it, but come on, its a tank, heck pulg and drill the barrel if it makes you happy, but its a tank, think of all the fun, if you ever rode in one you know what I mean.

35) Comment by jedleland - 26/02/2013

put away the fear, put away the guns

36) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 26/02/2013

"For your information, there is no military in the world that uses the AR-15. It is not qualified for killing other soldiers, because it is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon." The M4/M16 used in the US military has semi auto and burst modes. And the first thing taught in BRM in basic training is to always use semi-auto because the recoil of the first round makes the other 2 rounds in burst mode miss the target. Corvette Racer is an example of why there can't be reasonable discussion...

37) Comment by nimby? - 26/02/2013

my thoughts on several things . the founding fathers were intelligent , and wise . they had no inkling of what the future would bring . so they left us with the power to protect ourselves from ourselves . DMJ , you need to get over the "selfish,greedy,fear/paranoid" emotional rant to toss out liberally . we aren't you , we don't live in your world nor do we want to . we are not gun totting rednecks , right wing gun nuts or whatever else you chose to label . we are parents , grandparents concerned with gun violence . we are responsible , obey the laws , teach our children proper gun safety . I want a tank , not for the reason lefters might think . ever driven a tank , way cool . the ultimate 4 wheeler . there's VFW in northern Miss. selling off a WW 2 Sherman , runs , needs some work , I'm considering .

38) Comment by Whatchange - 26/02/2013

Tea_Slayer; the best answer I can give you and I'm sure its wrong is, maybe the founding fathers didn't feel a need for the law as everybody owned a gun, maybe they felt it was up to each state to ask for the right to bear arms be put into the Constitution, maybe they wanted to give the states the right to enforce that law as they see fit, I have no answer, as to why they didn't include it and that will be an argument that will go on for a long time. DMJ; the reason there will never be reasonable discussions on gun safety is because one side wants it all and the other side wants it all, point in case David Keene, Dianne Fieinstein, Ted Nugent, Andrew Cuomo. You will never get reasonable discussion as long as you have people such as these at the table. You put all the blame on gun owners without looking at what the other is doing or saying, both sides of this debate is to blame for all that is going on right now, both sides, not just gun owners.

39) Comment by Corvette Racer - 26/02/2013

We are not the paranoid, it is you, the leftists. You are afraid of my gun because it is black and scary looking. DDay and Lovemykids - you crack me up. Can I have a land mine or a drone? I guess you think that you are making fun of 'military' weapons. For your information, there is no military in the world that uses the AR-15. It is not qualified for killing other soldiers, because it is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon. You have been mislead by your savior Nobama and his cronies. Want my gun? Molan Labe! Look it up.

40) Comment by DMJ - 26/02/2013

Localgal, "why can't we have reasonable discussions on gun safety" you ask? Simple. Because a significant chunk of the population cares more about their guns then they do about the victims of gun violence. It's not worth trying to accomplish any regulation because it might make it slightly harder to get any type of gun they want. Pure selfishness. That...and paranoia. Their fear of imagined threats keeps us from dealing with the problems of real life. Add "is being a homemaker who makes sure her children are well fed, emotionally and spiritually stable and ready to become repsponsible citizens in our country such a vile thing?" It's not. I'm pretty sure no one ever said that it was. And you keep your gun in the bedside table with kids around?? Jesus Christ. You trying to turn your kids into statistics? Be smart. Lock them up.

41) Comment by localgal - 26/02/2013

Amen, popseal! My son took a hunter saftey course from both the NRA and Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries. In fact, all hunters 16 years of age or older in Louisiana are *required* to complete a hunter safety course before they can even have a license to use that firearm in the woods. Are we now going to compare the WLF department to right wing gun fanatics? Why can't we have reasonable discussions on gun safety and not call each other Nazis, male chavinists, and all the other insults that Mrs. Keegan has accused me, a conservative leaning independent, of? And why is being a homemaker who makes sure her children are well fed, emotionally and spiritually stable and ready to become repsponsible citizens in our country such a vile thing? I was that for almost 18 years. I *am* one of those homemakers. Maybe if we had more homemakers like that we wouldn't have to worry about some crazed drug addict or career I am one of those who experienced a home invasion when my son was only 3. We didn't have any guns in the house because hunting season had just ended and we could not afford a locking gun cabinet. I had moved them to another family member's house for the safety of my son. Had I had a firearm available, I am trained to use it and I would have. We have to protect ourselves from each other because many of our children are not being raised responsibly, are being involved in flash mobs at the mall and are of the mindset that they can do anything they want because their parents are not telling them otherwise. Our society is broken everyone. And until I see something change, I will keep my firearm in my bedside table, thank you very much. Oh and I get recertified to use it every year. Maybe we should just take VP Biden's advice and all homemakers should keep a loaded shotgun and just shoot it off on their porch whenever they feel threatened. And this is the supposedly intelligent government leader we are letting shape gun control legislations?

42) Comment by HRoark - 25/02/2013

My, my, this one really brought out the bullies. Good job Nancy!

43) Comment by prbeav - 25/02/2013

crabby makes it clear: if you think you are going to arm yourself against the US government, you should hide your mental deficiency and protect your loved ones (perhaps yourself?) from your gun actions.

44) Comment by bourbon-soda - 25/02/2013

The government is incapable of or unwilling to enforce laws presently on the books. Un-enforced laws are susceptible to discriminatory enforcement against unpopular segments of the population, as the Nazis vs Jews. This is one reason totalitarian governments in general, not just the Third Reich, like gun registration and control. They consider the people the enemy.

45) Comment by crabby - 25/02/2013

Anyone who seriously believes that they own thier gun to protect themselves from a government out of control should probably lose their gun rights for being mentally deficient. Not that the idea is a bad one but really, how would that work?

46) Comment by popseal - 25/02/2013

19,000 shooters enjoyed our range in safety last year. Range Safety Offices trained by the NRA. Be assured that the wackos don't learn their crimes at hunter safety, CCW, or any firearms safety classes run by the NRA officers. I refuse to quietly accept the slander coming at the NRA. It is born of fear and ignorance driven by mispaced emotions applied to the population by reptilian politicians and their Three Monkey media partners.

47) Comment by billynurse - 25/02/2013

Mrs. Keegan , The reason that you can't think of instances in which the populace has had to exercise it's right to protect itself is...because it CAN protect itself....Our right to adequately protect ourselves has been a 236 year deterrent to tyranny , both foreign AND domestic.....And yes , Mrs. Keegan , tyranny (soft , hard , or in any form) is not just possible in other countries....Don't make the mistake of thinking it can't happen here.

48) Comment by Chucky - 25/02/2013

The left are the Nazis of today hiding behind plastic mask and hacking computers seeking to make all one with the establishment and asking that we give up individual rights for the greater good of the collective. The Left Wing would have us submit to other cultures ( not that America has just one) but to the progressive and socialist, they would crush and eradicate any who confront or wish for an individual life. No i did not leave the Left, they left me, and surrendered.

49) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

Madison's first stab at this amendment in the first congress is even more militia-centric than the version that was ratified... "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 but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

50) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

Whatchange: we don't differ as much as you think. I think gun ownership is a is a right but one that is earned. We do agree that common sense regulation would go a long way towards extending that right to those who deserve it. I may have inelegantly stated my position. I know the far right folks will pick that apart but oh well. /// Here is where we do differ. If the "Founders" or "Framers" truly considered gun ownership an unalienable right, then why was it not included in the Constitution originally? Why was there such spirited debate on what a "gun ownership" amendment should entail? (the right to hunt? States rights vs Federal rights, etc) Why did it take the states to lobby for this right for it to be added to the Bill of Rights, and why include the introductory clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."? What bothers me is that those that so staunchly defend their 2nd Amendment rights totally overlook the unintended consequences of unfetter gun access to American society. Their attitude is "you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette."

51) Comment by 1ryben - 25/02/2013

"One broad sweeping regulation/legislation cannot serve the entire country." What?!? Is t that what the entire US Constitution is? I must be missing something.

52) Comment by nimby? - 25/02/2013

as much as they'd prefer those on the left are correct , the government is not coming for your guns , for now . if such an action were to take place it would more likely be a democratic administration . they would need complete cooperation from the military and the support of the wealthy , nuff said . if it ever got to the point where the government felt the need to disarm the public it is no longer a government of the people .

53) Comment by 1ryben - 25/02/2013

In each of these conversations on gun control people bring up the constitution as their defense for the lack of regulation regarding guns. "It's the second amendment! Can't touch it!" I bring up the first and fourth and amendments and wish just once that those same people would explain to me how we can regulate a d manipulate those two but the second amendment is off limits. Each time, I'm ignored. Each time, the conversation turns into personal attacks. "Those dumb liberals/conservatives" as if anytime someone thinks differently than you that they are ignorant.

54) Comment by DMJ - 25/02/2013

Ouch. A scathing rebuke to the gun advocates on the far right. Well done, Nancy.

55) Comment by Whatchange - 25/02/2013

SuzanneMS; I will admit I didn't completely read your full post, I stopped at "the nut cases coming down from the trees". What can I say, other than being wrong, I'm a Neo-Nazi nutcase, who supports the same things the Nazis did and believes the 2nd amendment gives me the right to commit treason, words that were taken directly from other post on here, one posted by you. Tea_Slayer: I do apologize to you, I spoke out of place, I do not agree with you on the 2nd Amendment and apparently we will never agree on it. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, I also believe in restrictions to those rights, it appears to me you don't believe in the Right to bear arms, I may be wrong, but after reading your post here and on many other letters about the 2nd Amendment, that is the impression I get, along with you believing its the States militias (National Guard) job to protect us from a tyranny in government, the very government that can call them to war, I do believe that’s a funny one though, “tyranny in government”, I laugh every time I hear that one. Now for this part, "Scary that a woman with a brain serves in the military, isn't it?" No, it’s not, not in the least, served with many women and I have the utmost respect for them. Smart women do not scare me at all, If they did I wouldn't be married to my wife, she is far smarter than myself. My son is in the NG, I find it funny how different yawl’s opinion on the role of the NG is.

56) Comment by rekamyah - 25/02/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

57) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

Attila, care to address the Militia Acts? Or any of my other points? No? Just keep making asinine mysogonistic comments. You are irrelevant...

58) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

poor Attila, you have no case.....you never have, but thanks for proving that once again.

59) Comment by Attila - 25/02/2013

@Tea-Slayer You said " And for your info, I currently serve... scary that a woman with a brain serves in the military, isn't it?" It certainly is...I rest my case.

60) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

nimby?, agreed on one point. I do cringe any time someone compares a group to Nazis. She did however have a point that the RW has compared gun control to the policies of theThird Reich

61) Comment by nimby? - 25/02/2013

as a conservative , right leaning independent I'm oft a bit embarrassed when some whose thoughts I agree with don't pay attention to Mr. Lincolns advice . I'm sure this letter brought a few moans from left leaning thinkers . as advertised we are not a one size fits all nation . one broad sweeping regulation/legislation cannot serve the entire country .

62) Comment by prbeav - 25/02/2013

If GardenVariety meant Keegan wrote a great letter, I agree.>>>>Federalist 29 addresses the militia and has many funny sentences, including this one: "In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another.">>>>And Federalist 46 is also about States militias to defend against the federal government.>>>>It seems to me no one ever questioned citizens rights to own guns for hunting and personal protection. I certainly don't feel my rights to my property are being threatened.

63) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

This one made me chuckle... "Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by our guns"

64) Comment by GardenVariety - 25/02/2013

WOW! Great letter!

65) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

welcome, Nikkik0852. Care to address the Militia Acts? Or the fact that the STATES, not the supposedly homogeneous "Founders" wanted the 2nd Amendment? Hint: there would have been no need to amend the constitution if all the "Founders" wanted universal gun rights. Naw, you just want to rant about killing all those fictitious citizens who wanna come to your house and disarm you.

66) Comment by SuzanneMS - 25/02/2013

Looking -- looking -- looking -- not finding any of those words in my post or any of the others. Not even finding your screen name, Whatchange. I do, however, see you making false accusations about others. Freud called that "projection" -- accusing others of your own behavior. It's also called a "strawman" and a "red herring." And unless you consider yourself to be a "right-wing gun advocate", then you aren't being referred to in the letter above. And even there, no one called you anything other than a "right-wing gun advocate." I know, Tea_Slayer, but on the off-chance that someone who is not familiar with these concepts happens to be reading, I felt I had to give the information. It might provide some with a response in the future. Casting bread upon the waters, as it were.

67) Comment by Nikkik0852 - 25/02/2013

If a person “fears” guns and/or gun violence, then that is their own personal problem, IT IS NOT my problem or society’s problem. We as gun owners should not have to relinquish our rights because others are afraid of what MIGHT happen to them. We should demand that they control THEIR fear, instead of being allowed to control OUR guns. For those of you who try to debate the 2nd amendment you need to stop twisting it into something its not! The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment.... 1.)The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government – Thomas Jefferson 2.)Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good – George Washington 3.)The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms – Samuel Adams If the government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of individuals to bear arms, regardless of what his government or NEIGHBORS happen to think. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by our guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If the president has a problem with the constitution then he should be removed from office. He is not defending the constitution he has sworn an oath to protect anyway. And all the gun banners need to realize that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If you continue to try then it is YOU that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so. And for those who are in support of taking the guns, not just the politicians, you need to read up because if you support those politicians then you have chosen your side. And believe me it’s the wrong side because not only do we have the constitution, our founding fathers, and the Supreme Court on our side but here’s another little reminder…. A MAJORITY CAN NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ONLY YOU CAN CHOOSE TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS! It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic and it protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say.

68) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

Whatycahnge, you r soapbox is teetering. Be careful. I have never called you any of the names you FALSELY accused me of using. And for your info, I currently serve... scary that a woman with a brain serves in the military, isn't it?

69) Comment by Whatchange - 25/02/2013

I do love this one, Gun Owners= Nazis, terrorist, and the wanton desire to commit treason against your government. Gotta love it, some of y'all really scare me. I own guns, I'm a hunter, it means I hunt, not one gun I own has ever been used in a crime, not one, but I find myself being called a Nazis, a terrorist, and hating my country even though I served my country by people like SuzanneMS, Tea_Slayer, twinkie1cat, and Suzi homemaker. Why, because I believe I have the right to own guns as guarantee to me by the 2nd Amendment and the US Supreme Court. I have stated my beliefs for gun control on here many times, but people such as Ms.Keegan scare me and make it hard to stand up for those beliefs.

70) Comment by Ian D - 25/02/2013

I say give the gal a break. After all, she states that she is "bemused" rather than "amused". Bemusement indicates a lack of ability to discern, even confusion. I think that fits

71) Comment by Ian D - 25/02/2013

I say give the gal a break. After all, she states that she is "bemused" rather than "amused". Bemusement indicates a lack of ability to discern, even confusion. I think that fits

72) Comment by Whatnow - 25/02/2013

So, now we are Nazis????? I guess if that's so, then we will be fighting the Communists tyrants that run this country, Nazis or not.

73) Comment by twinkie1cat - 25/02/2013

Bighug: Louisiana already has a tyrant and his name is Bobby Jindal. But we don't see any gun lovers organizing a militia to go out and kill him. Instead we are depending on our legislators to represent their constituencies for a change and stop him from destroying jobs, medical care, and schools non-violently.

74) Comment by twinkie1cat - 25/02/2013

Thank you Nancy: Call them what they are, neo-nazis bent on making America a nation ruled by arms instead of by law. In the past few years we have had a more contemporary word for those who would force their race, their faith, their "values" on others. Those are Talibangelists, referring to religionists who call themselves Christian but oppose the freedom of thought and actions demonstrated by Jesus Christ and an even closer- to-home word, Teapartiers. As I read the second amendment, the purpose for having an armed community is to form militias, ORGANIZED local armies to protect communities from those who would harm them. This made a lot of sense when there were no police departments and outlaws came thundering in to steal the payroll off the stagecoach, shoot up the saloon and rob the bank. We are more civilized now, or most of us are. I don't oppose a family owning a gun if they really feel there could be a risk, such as if they are a gay couple living around a lot of drunk rednecks, but assault rifles are like digging a moat around your house and installing a 14 foot alligator instead of going to the pound and adopting a dog. I suspect most of those who oppose control of guns, get their news from FOX. Why else would a "law abiding citizen" oppose even the government of a free country knowing who owns them?

75) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 25/02/2013

SuzanneMS: I have referenced the Militia Acts of 1792 (forming and regulating militias) and 1903 (formalizing the militias into the National Guard) on numerous occasions. Specifically that the Second Amendment was proposed by the First Congress in June 1791 and ratified by the states in Dec 1791 and the Militia Acts were passed in May 1792 by the Second Congress in DIRECT response to the 2nd Amendment...and I received silence from the gun loving 2nd Amendmentists because they know they are on the wrong side of facts on this...

76) Comment by SuzanneMS - 25/02/2013

And the nutcases have come down from the trees to try to claim that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to commit treason. I refer you to the rest of the Constitution, specifically, article 1 Section 8 and the powers of the Congress : "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" "suppress Insurrections" --- that would be armed revolt against the government. We vote in this country and we petition the government for redress; we don't commit armed rebellion. "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Congress was to provide for arming the militia -- the 2nd amendment puts the burden on the people to provide those arms. ALL men were de facto members of the militia. They didn't have the to option not to be. And they trained on a regular basis with their own weapons. The 2nd amendment was created not only because there was no standing army at the time, but because the Founders did not envision a standing army of any size. Congress had the power : "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." So, if you want to follow the original intent -- let's cut off the money to the military and sign up every man (and woman now) over the age of 18 for the militia.

77) Comment by [e-mail] - 25/02/2013

Obviously Keegan has never been in a desperate situation in which she had to defend her life; she should listen to those who have.

78) Comment by slye753 - 25/02/2013

sad to hear that i am a nazi because i own guns. this letter was probably written by one of the 51% that were duped to vote for obama. now, we need our guns more than any other time. some homemakers need to read up on history and not spend so much time watching the news media.

79) Comment by Chucky - 25/02/2013

Nancy, Your "right wingers" come in all religions, color, of foreign birth, and yes even women. You paint with a broad brush.

80) Comment by 1ryben - 25/02/2013

"Are you willing to compromise and restrict all the other freedoms we have in this country? Reasonable regulation and compromise right." You tell em Host! Don't mess with my second amendment rights! Just like you wouldn't dare touch that first amendment!....oh, wait, nevermind. Well then, tell them to keep their hands off that fourth amendment....oh poot, they messed with that one too.... What about the.....oh, I give up. We can regulate and compromise all of them?!? Oh, except the second amendment. Yes, right to prepare for the invasion. Oh ok.

81) Comment by lovemykids - 25/02/2013

I want land mines. I need to protect my home from the hoard of foreign invaders and the dictators running our local, state, and federal government. Not to mention the squirrels.

82) Comment by The_Host - 25/02/2013

Please oh wise historian/homemaker enlighten us all as to why the words "Enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC" is included in so many oaths? Exactly who are the Domestic Enemies and who is supposed to do anything about them if it ends up being the government itself after you have given up all your guns? Which at this point it isn't to hard to make the argument that government itself is the one undermining this country. Are you all willing to compromise and restrict all the other freedoms we have in this country? Reasonable regulation and compromise right. That is where we compromise and you take away. The people sticking up for the 2nd aren't interested in compromising to make women sitting at home happy. Since you have lots of free time I suggest taking a few history classes or reading some books. Or just search dictators who killed millions of their own people and go from there. They have several to choose from.

83) Comment by postscript56 - 25/02/2013

I agree with Nancy, but what's the point? Folks who worship the second amendment and are in love with their guns are not going to change their minds. In fact even talking about restrictions is proof "they" want to take away guns and makes these people cling even more tightly to their security blanket...er, gun.

84) Comment by Wallop - 25/02/2013

The Second Amendment wasn't written by the Founders. It was proposed by the states after the Constitution had been ratified. They wanted re-assurance that the newly created government wouldn't pass laws to take away their power to have guns. Scot B, Ms. Keegan wasn't equating gun advocates with Hitler. She simply pointed out that they tend to support the same things the Nazis did. And I agree with her. I suggest you read a few books on the subject.

85) Comment by dday198 - 25/02/2013

can i buy a drone? the government owns drones why can't i?

86) Comment by Bighug - 25/02/2013

Ms. Keegan should study a little harder. The 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect the country from invaders, but from our own government in case the rulers became unbearable tyrants. Read the Federalist Papers. Also, she is wrong about our citizen-owned guns never repelling an enemy. Read the words of the Japanese military leaders about why they didn't continue the attack on Pearl Harbor into the continental US.

87) Comment by ScotB - 24/02/2013

Any letter that devolves into comparing people with which you disagree to Hitler will typically be regarded as a rant and not worthy of consideration. This is, indeed, one such letter - which shows she does not understand history, either.