Letter: Sixth-grader backs Second Amendment

My name is Michael Conger and I’m in the sixth grade at Cypress Heights Academy. I’m also a First Class Scout in Troop 888.

The Founding Fathers of our country wrote the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, known as the “right to bear arms.” We have the right to bear arms because of this.

Many men from 1776 to today have fought and died to keep that right. My grandfather fought in World War II to keep that right. People who abuse that right in massacres, shootouts and terrorism should be locked up.

If we don’t have the right to bear arms, we can’t defend ourselves against those people. We have the right to protect ourselves and our families, and, in my opinion, we should be able to keep it.

Michael Conger

middle-school student

Praireville

Comments

1) Comment by twinkie1cat - 16/03/2013

I hit the button. In fact this is a standard 4 paragraph theme as elementary and middle school students are taught to write. It is organized with an introduction, two points and a conclusion. I wish some of the writers to the Advocate could do so well. The letter deserves an A whether you agree with his opinions or not.

2) Comment by twinkie1cat - 16/03/2013

I don't like seeing adults saying a 6th grader could not write this letter. 6th graders are about 12 years old. They can think for themselves and often do. In the good schools, quality writing skills are emphasized. I wrote my first 10 page term paper in the 7th grade. I was also very much aware of political issues and had my own viewpoints, especially on the politics of the Civil Rights Movement which was playing out before my eyes. What I believed was very different from what my parents believed, but they did not always know it because I was a respectful child. I started reading the paper and watching the news at 10 years old. While Michael's parents and the Boy Scouts may have influenced his views, they are probably his own, based on his education, his experiences and his reaction to those experiences. A sixth grader is quite capable of having political views, They may change later and that is ok too.

3) Comment by Scrooge - 16/03/2013

Also heartening is the fact that Mr. Conger is able to write and express himself more clearly than the regressives on these forums or should it be frightening? "you don't have to be a dumb A to be a conservative , but it helps" Bobby Jindal "quack quack" Donald Duck

4) Comment by DMJ - 15/03/2013

At least young Mr. Conger has a valid excuse for not knowing history. He's a kid. What are the rest of your excuses?

5) Comment by Whatnow - 15/03/2013

Good one, nimby?

6) Comment by nimby? - 15/03/2013

advocate is getting very picky , will try again . "you don't have to be a smart A to be a liberal , but it helps" , Abbie Hoffman ...

7) Comment by nimby? - 15/03/2013

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

8) Comment by HRoark - 15/03/2013

You'll shoot your eye out kid.

9) Comment by Scrooge - 14/03/2013

Whatnow? writes: "Scrooge, you don't risk the perception of dumb, you are past that point." Why thank you, flattery is not necessary . While you will have no argument from me regarding first amendment rights, statements such as "There are people out there who want to indoctrinate you to believe the way that they do." are ad hominem arguments which cause your intended meaning to contradict itself. It is difficult to agree or disagree with someone who has difficulty writing a coherent thought. See, its not about con or lib, one's rights or lack of them, writing is a manifestation of thought, and when the written evidence is suspect it is difficult to take the thought seriously. Placing a weapon in the hands of someone whose thought is suspect raises questions. There should be no reason in this society that persons are unable to express themselves coherently, obviously they did not take advantage of a free public education and wallowed in laziness. There is no excuse, private.

10) Comment by Attila - 14/03/2013

@Bouncer: As I stated if you are not a liberal you missed a good chance. Why does that bother you so? If I am wrong, a person with any class at all would civilly rebut my comment. You obviously subscribe to the proposition that if you can't intelligently refute the message...attack the messenger. You have that down to a science. I seem to remember you saying, on this forum no less, that you are a state employee who revels in the fact that the rest of us are stupid and you cannot wait to retire and take your generous benefits elsewhere...I hope that happens soon.

11) Comment by Whatnow - 14/03/2013

beabea, what our soldiers fought for was freedom from tyranny by dictators on the western front and and by greed and treachery from the far east. They fought for freedom for others. Some fought for retaliation from the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Either way, it was against tyranny. Tyranny can happen anywhere and our country is not immune. They swear an oath first and foremost to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and so far, until it's changed, the right to bear arms is one of our freedoms that they swear to uphold. So, Michael, you are right. And yes, there were other reasons, and they fought for our allies and the helpless, but when they enlist, they take this oath. That oath means quite a lot to some soldiers as does the Constitution and helping others.

12) Comment by beabea - 14/03/2013

Michael, as others have already pointed out, no one is talking about getting rid of the Second Amendment. And even if someone were to try, they wouldn't get very far for reasons that are clear when you think about what it actually takes to amend the United States Constitution. And as others have also noted, World War II was not in fact fought for your right keep and bear arms--and it's actually kind of disrespectful to your grandfather and other WW II veterans to suggest that, since they fought and died for something far bigger and more consequential. It's really unfortunate when kids get brainwashed into this kind of fear-driven alternate reality, but that's not Michael's fault.

13) Comment by Whatchange - 14/03/2013

Wow, new people commenting about the same old argument with the same old thoughts.

14) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 14/03/2013

Àttilla, have you ever heard the term' Activist Judges'? Ignoring 200 years of legal precedent and giving the 2nd amendment a whole new meaning fits that description. Legislating from the bench is something the conservatives love to complain about. But, apparently, not when they are the ones doing it. I think the conservatives call it tyranny when they accuse liberals of doing it.

15) Comment by Being_Stupid - 14/03/2013

I remember when I was in 6th grade. Didn't matter if you were in the first grade or 8th grade, every student had the same teacher and we all shared 1 classroom. There was no girls and boys bathrooms, just an outhouse. There were no school buses, only horse. We didn't have internet either.

16) Comment by Bouncer - 14/03/2013

@Attilla....ever heard the initials KMA? Any idea what they stand for? Take a big guess, and do it. You know NOTHING about me, aside from whatever weak (and incorrect) suppositions you draw from posts made on this message board. Keep your suppositions to yourself. Better yet, stick 'em where the sun doesn't shine.

17) Comment by nimby? - 14/03/2013

it appears this young man is learning respect for , receiving proper training in the use of firearms , unlike many whose stories grace the local media on a consistent basis ...

18) Comment by DMJ - 14/03/2013

Yeah...way back in 2005. Like I said, it wasn't always interpreted this way. I don't doubt that the court made this ruling. What I'm stating is a fact: individual gun ownership outside of membership in a militia as an idea doesn't date back to the framing of the constitution, no matter how much some people wish it did. This concept is merely 40 years old and, not surprisingly, became legitimized in congruence with the ascendency of the NRA and its influence on Congress. You can argue the merits of having a gun all you want, but to say, as the young Mr. Conger does, that the Founders' original intent was to arm the general populace for no apparent reason other than "We can, so we should!" is simply not true. Moreover, even after the Heller ruling, there's no constitutional reason that we can't have stricter regulations on guns and those who sell them. Gun control/advocacy is not an all-or-nothing issue. There's a vast swath of middle ground.

19) Comment by Attila - 14/03/2013

@DMJ: Last time I checked the Supreme Court has ruled on the Second Amendment...sorry that ruling does not please you, BUT until you are appointed to the SCOTUS your opinion is just that....and you know what is said about opinions????

20) Comment by Attila - 14/03/2013

@Bouncer: Ever hear the term "double standards"? You seem to have a problem with a 6th grader being used to extoll the virtues of the Constitution by his conservative parents...but you seem to have no problem with BHO using children as props in his press conferences hawking his attempts to subvert the Second Amendment. I do not know, for certain, if your are a liberal, but if you are not you have missed a good chance.....if not for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

21) Comment by DMJ - 14/03/2013

For those who think that the 2nd Amendment was always interpreted like it was by the Supreme Court in 2008... http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html?hpid=z1 The whole idea of the 2nd Amendment conferring the right for individuals (not groups) to be able to have guns is a relatively new idea. It does back dozens of years, not hundreds. I bet this kid thinks "in god we trust" has been our motto since the 1790s as well...

22) Comment by potkcalb - 14/03/2013

The only way that the Second Amendment (or any amendment) to the U.S. Constitution can be repealed is by passing another amendment repealing it. For that to happen a bill has to pass both houses of the legislature by a two thirds vote and ratified or approved by three quarter of the states. Needless to say that is not going to happen. So all those foaming at the mouth with fear that the Second will be overturned can find something else to rant about.

23) Comment by Whatchange - 14/03/2013

I love this one, "People should be able to have rifles and shotguns if they want to kill God's animals", I guessing twinkie1cat buys all his/her meats and poultry from the supermarket where all god loving animal lovers buy their meats and poultry, after all Livestock and poultry is a product of man right. I'm sorry twinkie1cat, I had to, this is so funny. Now I'm going get my summer time weapon of choice, my Penn rod and reel jump in my stump jumper and kill me some of god's red-fish. Man, us 2nd amendment lovers, always looking for a weapon to kill something. By the way, great letter, dab nab 6th graders, what they teaching kids in school these days, how dare them teach them free thinking.

24) Comment by phil - 14/03/2013

DMJ - which part of our Constitution should we adults pick and choose to ignore?

25) Comment by phil - 14/03/2013

Just to add, since there is a relatively young person involved here. I think violence should always be the LAST method to use in any situation, so adults please keep that gun in a safe place away from children, and only bring it out if and when you absolutely have to.

26) Comment by DMJ - 14/03/2013

Yes, like most adults who claim to love the Constitution, he picks and chooses which bits to cite to make his point.

27) Comment by Whatnow - 14/03/2013

Scrooge, you don't risk the perception of dumb, you are past that point. The boy has the right and freedom to think the way he does, as do you. That a sixth grader is not playing with an Xbox or text messaging all day is refreshing and shows that he is not brain dead yet. He is learning about the Constitution, which is more than most American have done. Most American don't care one way or the other. I give him credit for being involved in voicing his opinion.

28) Comment by phil - 14/03/2013

It is nice to see a young person interested in keeping our Constitution alive and well. Good job, Michael ! Personally I hate the idea that anyone needs to own a gun for protection. However, in the world we live in it is almost a necessity. We need guns to protect our families and we need guns to protect ourselves from people who might one day try to turn this country into a dictatorship etc and try to destroy it from within. I think the people who wrote the Constitution were very well educated on these concepts. Keep up the good work, Michael. You could be President one day, who knows.

29) Comment by DMJ - 14/03/2013

I guess this Conger kid thinks his scout troop is a well-regulated militia (which is a phrase gun advocates absolutely love to ignore). Well... I guess Scouts is more of a militia than most people's idea of one, which is anyone at any time with no regulation whatsoever. Oh, and I had relatives fight in WWII as well. For them, it had nothing to do with keeping a gun at home for whatever reason. Still... good to see a 6th grader getting involved in political issues, even if his views are dangerous. On second thought...maybe it's not good.

30) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 14/03/2013

And for those that wish to accuse those that want gun regulation of treason or not understanding our Constitution, they need to go back and learn. The Right of Self Rule means that we can regulate guns or anything else. The beauty of our Constitution is that it is NOT set in stone. It is a system of decision making giving us, The People, the power to make the decisions. Going against that authority is treasonous.

31) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 14/03/2013

I suppose parents have the right to indoctrinate their kids as they see fit, but they should try to maintain some resemblance to accuracy while doing so. As a veteran, I am a bit perturbed by this kids idea (and that his parents failed to correct) that veterans died for a right to bear arms. Nothing could be further from the truth. Veterans defend the "Right of Self Rule" that our original Constitution granted us. The Bill of Rights was a caveat. It was to entice people to ratify the Constitution. When people place the Bill of Rights on a higher pedestal than the Constitution itself, we have a problem.

32) Comment by [e-mail] - 14/03/2013

Mr. Conger is right. What amazes me is that some set themselves up as regulators, i.e. they make the sort of "it's all right to have a rifle or shotgun, but why do they need a pistol" type of comments that gun control people claim is "reasonable". That's baloney, it's just the control they want, and that's the truth of it; they just want to tell the rest of us what we can do and what we can't do according to what they want us to do; which usually ends up with them as dictators.

33) Comment by Scrooge - 14/03/2013

Whatnow, writing to a sixth grader says: "There are people out there who want to indoctrinate you to believe the way that they do." Not that Whatnow would "want to indoctrinate you to believe the way that he/she does", Whatnow It might really be helpful to think about what you write. You risk the perception of dumb, regardless of the merits or not of the second amendment and that might invalidate your earnestness of belief.

34) Comment by potkcalb - 14/03/2013

All of this brouhaha over guns aside the Second Amendment is not going to be overturned.

35) Comment by Bouncer - 14/03/2013

LOL. A sixth-grader acting as a shill for his gun-toting mommy or daddy, no doubt. I'm sure he "wrote" the letter (wink-wink) with a little "help." Personally, I don't give a flip about guns one way or the other, but I do hate to see a child dragged into what is essentially an adult conversation. The kid should be playing XBox or text messaging his friends all day, not sitting around preoccupied with "gun rights" and writing letters to the editor (which I seriously doubt he did, anyway). The Advocate has sunk to a new low on this one.

36) Comment by Bighug - 14/03/2013

Good letter. I agree. In addition to reading all the 2nd Amendment, it is also good to read the Federalist Papers to understand what the writers of the Constitution meant. They did not mean "a group of people getting together with the sheriff." twinkie should study more history books and not watch Roy Rogers movies for her information.

37) Comment by Whatnow - 14/03/2013

Michael, keep believing what you want. That is also your right. Don't let anyone sway you on what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights means. There are people out there who want to indoctrinate you to believe the way that they do. That is not freedom. That is oppression from freedom. They want you to feel guilty for owning a gun because of the sick people who disobey the law. Very nice letter. You did well.

38) Comment by twinkie1cat - 13/03/2013

Thank you, Michael for expressing yourself so clearly. You are a good writer. Keep it up.>>>>>>> I don't agree with you, however. People should be able to have rifles and shotguns if they want to kill God's animals and they can have a pistol at home if they keep it locked up, in a hidden place where the kids don't know about it. You know how kids your age are. They like to show off. Some of them think it is cool to bring out a gun and show it to their friends. >>>>>>>>Assault weapons no one outside of the army and police should be allowed to have. I had a 9th grade girl in one of my classes. Her 10th grade brother got with his friends, skipped school and went to an empty house. They had a gun. The gun went off and shot one of the boys. She was very broken hearted because her brother got put out of school and went to jail. She had been looking forward to being in high school with her brother.>>>>>>> Yes, Americans have a right to have guns. But the way I read the 2nd Amendment is that people should have guns if they need a "well ordered militia". That means a group of people getting together with the sheriff to keep the bad guys outside of their town when the sheriff cannot do it by him or herself. We don't really need militias any more. The Ascension Parish Sheriff does a pretty good job where you live. When you read the 2nd Amendment, please read the whole thing, not just the part you like. This is called reading in context---looking at the whole picture.