Letter: Gun ban won’t cure evil

What does “the right to keep and bear arms” mean?

I believe in the existence of unalienable rights, but for those who believe all rights exist only through the divine benevolence of government, then what follows will have no meaning.

Among our unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What use are these rights if one cannot protect them?

Unless an individual can protect these rights, they are rendered meaningless. The Second Amendment was written for the purpose of protecting these rights.

With the right to protect comes an awesome responsibility, and most people who acquire guns legally are responsible with them. Gun laws restrict only lawful gun owners, not unlawful ones.

If, for example, an elderly man or woman is alone in his or her home and in the middle of the night a 250-pound intruder enters uninvited, what happens? There are only three reasons a person would break into a home, and those reasons would be to rob, rape or kill you. In that situation, that elderly person has no chance but to submit and hope for the best.

But with one finger on a trigger, he/she is equal to that intruder in defense of his/her life, liberty and property. One might say they should call the police, hide and wait. Yes, by all means call and wait if you can, but if a confrontation arises, that person, any person, has the right to defend himself — and should.

Restrictions and bans on guns limit a person’s ability to do just that and do not and never will limit or restrict the intruder.

In this country, we are free to exercise — or not — the right of self-defense. If one chooses not to exercise that right because he fears guns, he is free not to defend themselves. But he cannot in any way infringe on my right to exercise and defend my life, liberty and property.

After every tragic incident involving the use of firearms, those on the political left call for restricting or banning guns as the answer to the evil that resides in the hearts of some people. Banning guns will only exacerbate the problem. The only thing it will restrict evil is the ability to defend against it.

For the left to use these tragedies to restrict and limit my ability to protect my family and property from the evil that exists in man is appalling and it should be shamed for doing so.

The Second Amendment, along with the other nine are not a Bill of Suggestions, they are a Bill of Rights and are not subject to negotiation.

Fear not the gun for lack of understanding.

Address the evil in man, not the instrument.

Stephen Cambre

field manager

Clinton

Comments

1) Comment by Whatnow - 06/01/2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yATeti5GmI8

2) Comment by Attila - 06/01/2013

All of the people arguing for "gun control" at any cost have drank so much of the liberal Kool Aid that it makes Jonestown look like a practice run. God help us. Ben Franklin said that a person who would give up any liberty in exchange for security deserves neither...so true...so true.

3) Comment by Scrooge - 06/01/2013

But the obvious is lost to parrots.

4) Comment by Scrooge - 06/01/2013

Who is arguing for gun control at any cost? I was being facetious but you are mistaking irony for intent and sanity for a reality of your own imagination. No private citizen needs military grade weapons, there is good reason the armaments I enumerated are not publicly available because those with a separate idea of sanity might use them.

5) Comment by Scrooge - 05/01/2013

Attila, I need a hand grenade can you tell me where to get one? Yup, they started with hand grenades and now you can't buy a decent mortar, artillery piece or land mine. The black helicopters came and got mine. America is still not Somalia, thank God but paranoia may get us there.

6) Comment by Whatnow - 05/01/2013

Triple, I agree. DMJ, you can say my comments are dumb all you want. Actually I think everything comment you make is stupid, arrogant and wussy. It's just blatantly ironic for a government who gives guns to drug cartels, (not military) who kill hundreds of innocents, to tell me that I can't have the same type of weapon? I am trained and I am the militia, JUST IN CASE. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill. It's not about taking away any type of gun, it's about control. I don't want our government, in these times, having me under their control and telling me what to do. We are not under a dictatorship yet. I am not paranoid. I'm just prepared and ready JUST IN CASE, which is my right. It is every citizens right. Not the cartels and the Muslim Brotherhood nor al Qaeda, who our President GIVES weapons to with a smile. I don't trust him, especially since Benghazi, his cabinet, his IRS, his Homeland Security and all the government agencies that just stock piled enough hollow point bullets to kill every citizen five times. Not trusting someone doesn't mean you're paranoid. It just means you're not a programmed robot. You think you are the epitome of reason. Your reason has taken over your manhood.

7) Comment by Triple - 05/01/2013

DMJ, Possibly stolen, black market or garage sale, what's it matter, in response to the aggression, the law abiding citizen will likely get training, acquire his weapon legally and most likely never fire it in response to future aggression. Regardless, in America today, guns are the reality as stated in these discussions. In my mind the irony is not thugs with guns, but law abiding citizens who historically would not have owned a gun, becoming owners in response to unanticipated aggression. As the proverb goes, "violence begets violence.....instead of diminishing evil it multiples it", homage to MLK.

8) Comment by brlady61 - 05/01/2013

We MUST start identifying mental problems in this country. I think the mother of the man who shot those children was absolutely irresponsible to have those guns in her home. I can only imagine that she had the sense to lock them up, but unless they were in a real gun case and she had the only key, they were obviously accessible. She had the right to own them, and I understand she used them at gun ranges, but she knew her son had mental problems. Whether he had ever exhibited violence is not the point. When a mentally challenged person has access to guns, we can't be sure what will happen.

9) Comment by DMJ - 05/01/2013

Triple, do you not realize the irony in what you wrote? How did that person get a .357 magnum in the first place?

10) Comment by Triple - 05/01/2013

DMJ, suspect those passionate about unrestricted gun rights and those passionate about unrestricted abortion rights have a common strategy, fight and win every challenge whether it's assault weapons or late term abortion. I would hypothesize of another group strongly in favor of gun rights, those that have found themselves inches away from the business end of a handgun, and an intimidating face behind it. Those that survive, probably live in fear of facing that proposition again and take steps to avoid reliving the fear. I would guess it's a group growing daily. Now that's a fear more real than a fear of God. Suspect some anti- gun zealots suddenly change after facing a .357 Mag, just as some abortion rights zealots would change after watching a late term abortion. Reality tends to shake the foundation of the purest ideologue.

11) Comment by Attila - 05/01/2013

I think for most gun owners the REAL issue is the old camel's nose under the tent analogy. Once we allow the government to start putting onerous limits on what type of rifle, handgun, shotgun, ammunition, or clips/magazines we can own and possess they will not stop there...once they realize that they can flaunt their federal powers with no limits the next move will be to ban all guns that can shoot more than one round without reloading...there goes your semi auto handguns and hunting rifles, and shotguns. Then they will start defining exactly what caliber of weapon you may possess...and then...and then,.,..,well you get the idea.

12) Comment by Scrooge - 04/01/2013

Unfortunately more guns won't do much for curing evil either

13) Comment by chem - 04/01/2013

The gun issue is difficult. As far as I know, we are the only country that has the right to own guns in its constitution. That is no small obstacle to overcome. My progressive friends might disown me, but I am not in favor of banning guns. I own guns and hold a concealed carry license for the past 14 years. Background checks for private and gun show sales would be reasonable. After all, if you go to a gun store, you have to have a background check. The number of violent acts is reprehensible, but I don't think anyone can do much about that. Unless everyone is forced to have a mental examination every year, how can you stop those with mental problems from committing horrible acts. I really don't know how to fix the problem of crime. The current socio-economic conditions in this country are dismal and certainly play a major part in crime. Crime has always been with us and always will be.

14) Comment by prbeav - 04/01/2013

Seriously, misterfalcon, in light of first amendment rights, Elisha would not have employed two miraculous bears to maul 42 jeering boys. I question your source.

15) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

hahaha!

16) Comment by misterfalcon - 04/01/2013

All of these arguments miss the point. The solution is as simple as it is radical. It is time to arm the bears. And let them loose upon our school children. Those who are frightened or eaten shall become office workers or lunch. Those who prevail, they shall become great leaders of mankind and preside over our righteous governance pronouncing wisdom from beneath their formidable cloaks, shaking forth erudite judgment that mixes with the jangling of their bear-claw necklaces before floating up to heaven to please the gods. They say that a gun is a coward's weapon, but that an armed bear is the weapon of the divine sent to sort out the chosen. Why would it be in the Constitution AND the Bible if it weren't true: 2nd Amendment AND 2 Kings 2:23-25?

17) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

Old man Kensey, apparenlty, it is. You see...some people only think in extremes. Regulating the purchase of a particular type of guns, in their minds, becomes siezing all guns. As if that were even logistically possible... Ugh. You can't reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with. Just look at Whatnow's post: "When they take every gun from every criminal, even the ones the government gave to the Mexican cartels..." You see what I mean? It's like...if we can't prevent ALL crime, then we shouldn't try to prevent any? How dumb is that?

18) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 04/01/2013

A lot of posters can't seem to comprehend the vast difference between' banning' guns and' regulating' guns. Is it really that difficult to understand?

19) Comment by Whatnow - 04/01/2013

When they take every gun from every criminal, even the ones the government gave to the Mexican cartels, then we can talk.

20) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

Sandy, the government has the right to put limitations on rights, even those in the Bill of Rights, when it comes to public safety. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who wants to exercise their right to free speech by threatening someone, engaging in espionage, threatening someone, lying to a judge or jury under oath, inciting a riot, distrubing the peace, etc. Just because you feel like doing something, doesn't mean you can, if it has terrible consequences for the rest of the country. The government has a responsibility to limit which types of weapons a person can use. Last I checked, you can't have your own Abrams tank or rocket launcher. I know you and Ted Nugent hate this, but it's true.

21) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 04/01/2013

As an aside ... duckyluve: "This president wont be happy till ALL guns are gone so he then can do his dirty work without fear of people fighting back." Please stop pretending you are intimate with the President's unspoken desires and, especially, his motives. This president has never indicated a desire to eradicate guns, and if he ever does, he will tell you why he wants to. It is nearly impossible to have reasonable conversation with those who just keep on making [stuff] up, then deciding its fact. *** And Reb, wtf? There must be more between you and swinham than is represented on this board, becasue swinham's post says nothing like your nasty responses indicate.

22) Comment by Reb - 04/01/2013

You had no case to begin with...

23) Comment by swinham - 04/01/2013

I rest my case.

24) Comment by Reb - 04/01/2013

@swinham.... At least I won't act like a panty waisted liberal and make comments designed to have you silenced.. I accept your inability to understand the situation... And when they come take your guns, maybe I will loan you one of mine...

25) Comment by Sandy - 04/01/2013

DMJ - please define an assault rifle.

26) Comment by Sandy - 04/01/2013

The absolute willingness of people in this forum to allow the government to define your rights based on your needs amazes me. Don't you people realize that the Constitution is not intended to work that way? The Constitution recognizes rights that the government cannot (or is not supposed to) take away. It does not matter if I need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine! If I want one, the government has no business telling me whether or not I can have one! Maybe once it spreads beyond gun ownership and the government starts telling you that you don't need a pickup truck, so you can't have one you will begin to understand what the Constitution is all about. Probably not. Most people are sheep who blindly do what the government says confident that the kind, benevolent politicians will take better care of them than they can themselves.

27) Comment by swinham - 04/01/2013

@Reb: You apparently did not read/understand my comments since your post is in no way responsive to what I said. I should not acknowledge your stooping to name-calling. When a true rebuttal is impossible, personal attacks are not an acceptable substitute. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but at least disagree with something I actually said rather than making up something to disagree with. I don't disagree with anything you have said in your post except your personal and unwarranted attack on me. I am not arrogant, but I am smart enough to know I do not, nor will I ever know everything because there is a lot more I don't know than I do know and I know it.

28) Comment by dday198 - 04/01/2013

i own guns but these gun people are as hard core as peta, right to life, pro- choice. there is no middle ground. when was the Gatling gun invented i would guess long after this right we have and the a r15 without a doubt.

29) Comment by dday198 - 04/01/2013

i'm looking to buy an ar15 with a drum that way if my home is attack by 30 or 40 people i can hold'm off for a while

30) Comment by Reb - 04/01/2013

Swinham is arrogantly incorrect as usual... History proves that governments are totally capable of passing laws to ban guns completely... Mr Cambre wrote an excellent letter... Panty waisted liberals like Mr Winham would have us simply do nothing while the Hitlers of the world disarm us ..... Wimpy, Wimpy, Wimpy....

31) Comment by prbeav - 04/01/2013

DMJ. I agree with your point for the short run yet think the militia aspect might eventually need to be re-considered. If you update the right to bear arms against an unjust government, you need the right to carry nuclear weapons: anything less is insufficient.>>>>I have come to think that government should be republican (bound by the rule of law) and have the monopoly on force.>>>>As we experience, America is not bound by law, but does have a monopoly on force. We the People must require our government to obey the law. Predictably, I advocate most Americans to consider and practice the preamble to the US Constitution.

32) Comment by prbeav - 04/01/2013

Sorry. >>>> I meant to close the quote after "resolution." Also, "shorty paraphrase of the preamble" should read "shortly paraphrase the preamble."

33) Comment by prbeav - 04/01/2013

Eugene Robinson often writes ideas I oppose, but also often presents facts that challenge my understanding. His column "An urgent 2013 resolution impressed me, especially with this comparison. England, famous for its hunting traditions as well as its share of social problems, also has strong gun control laws. In 2010 gun death statistics were 31,076 Americans killed, 11, 078 homicides. In England, 56 homicides. Adjusting for population in millions of people, 313 US versus 56 England, England's homicide rate would be 313 or 2.8% of America's rate.>>>>Robinson makes other important points.>>>>Most Americans take for granted that their surrogate (in government, elected representative and in ethics, God) will eventually correct injustices. However, when an individual considers the preamble to the US Constitution, it is difficult to pass the buck. To shorty paraphrase of the preamble: We the People govern this nation. Thus, we are responsible for a homicide rate that is 36 times higher than that of perhaps our closest ally on Earth.>>>>Thank you Mr. Robinson, for some light.

34) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

prbeav, you're right. Just because something's in the Constitution, doesn't mean it can't be removed or changed. However, repealing the 2nd Amendment isn't politically realistic, so the point is pretty much moot. We don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment to have real gun control.

35) Comment by prbeav - 04/01/2013

I doubt anyone today can account for or explain the miracle represented by the United States Constitution, but please correct my errors.>>>>Tyranny against the Confederation of States is too strong a term, but the delegates to the May, 1787 meeting in Philadelphia were only authorized to strengthen the Articles of Confederation, chiefly to empower Congress to raise taxes to pay Revolutionary War debts, to limit tyranny by advantaged states, and to establish a central power that could be recognized by other nations. The Virginia delegation had been working on a plan of government, which they presented as soon as a quorum arrived. The delegates had the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, authored by delegate John Adams as a model for balanced governmental powers. As Virginia’s plan was debated in competition with a New Jersey plan and others, it became clear to the majority that indeed, forming a new nation was the only viable path.>>>>Behind closed doors, the delegates worked on a task for which they had no authority: forming a nation. Thomas Jefferson could not serve as he was in Paris. One state, Rhode Island, was not represented at all. Of 70 delegates, 55 attended the convention, and only 39 signed the Constitution, dated September 17, 1787. Those who signed knew that Congress might not approve it, not having authorized it. But, the document did not ask Congress to approve it: it required nine of thirteen states to ratify it. Congress approved the ratification process, and the ninth state ratified on June 21, 1788. Patrick Henry had argued vehemently that “We the People” should be changed to “We the States.” Some states ratified on the condition that the first Federal Congress would amend the Constitution to include a bill of rights, Principal author of both the Virginia plan and the Constitution, James Madison, promised to run for the House of Representatives and draft a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was ratified by the required ¾ of states on December 15, 1791.>>>>The US Constitution incorporated many costly errors: slave trade for another 20 years; slavery; denial of women’s right to vote; no child protections; and others, but created the means to amend the Constitution. If the Second Amendment is unjust, it can be revised.

36) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

It is the gun AND the mind, obviously. The guy in China who also attacked a school the same day as Newtown couldn't get a gun (it's virtually impossible for a civilian to get a gun in China), so he used a knife. He stabbed 23 people; they all survived. Everyone who got shot in Newtown was killed. Clearly, it's more than the mind. The type of weapon matters. Anyone who denies this is either delusional or really stupid, no offense. And folgers, what type of weapon was used in those scenarios you mentioned? Minds? Baseball bats? Or guns? Until we agree on what actually happens in the real world, we'll never even begin to address the problem of gun violence in the U.S.

37) Comment by HerbF - 04/01/2013

Clearly there should be some tightening of gun control. Start with large capacity magazines and/or assault weapons. Simply don't sell them anymore.

38) Comment by foldgers - 04/01/2013

Once again, if you feel that the military are thee only ones who should have these weapons because they are properly trained, then look at Vietnam. How many innocent women and children did our troops kill? Second, didn't the guy who shot JFK learn to shoot in the Marines? Third, Fort Hood. And I am sure there are MANY murders out there done by military personnel. It is not the GUN, it is the MIND of the gun holder. That is all.

39) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

We can have significant gun control without infringing on a person's ability to have a gun (maybe not 30 guns) for self-defense. We can severely restrict gun sales and ammo sales all we want and that would have absolutely no bearing on 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment does NOT apply to gun sellers. We can set up a well-managed database, which might actually enable law enforcement to track and staunch the flow of illegal guns. We can and should ban assault rifles and high-capacity magainzes, which are only suited for killing lots of people. Yes, in hindsight, the human cost of the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is truly tragic; however, Pandora's box has already been open. No one is talking about a ban of all guns or somehow having the government confiscate all guns door-to-door. These are but the fears of paranoid yahoos, long divorced from reality. This is not an all or nothing issue, folks.

40) Comment by Duckyluve - 04/01/2013

The ban on cocaine has prevented crackheads too.This president wont be happy till ALL guns are gone so he then can do his dirty work without fear of people fighting back.

41) Comment by Wallop - 04/01/2013

BigMike, I've come to have a very dim view of "historical experts," and Mr. Albert Gallatin may fit the mold. In his Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson stated quite clearly that the first amendment applied only to the federal government, and that the states reserved the power to regulate speech and religion. Mr. Gallatin seems to forget that the so-called Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments that were proposed by the states after the original constitution was ratified. Please read my reply to postscript below.

42) Comment by BigMike - 04/01/2013

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789).........."What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]).........."I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

43) Comment by postscript56 - 04/01/2013

pville - No it is not the same thing. The Second Amendment also says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..." This established the conditions under which the right could not be infringed. If the intent was that such rights are inalienable there is no reason for anything other than "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " Period. But that isn't what it says. Thus the right is not "inalienable." It is conditional and the conditions are stated. This condition may exist in perpetuity, or you might argue it no longer exist at all. But the right to keep and bear arms is not inalienable.

44) Comment by swinham - 04/01/2013

This letter and the one that follows it in the print edition of the ADVOCATE, do a good job presenting basically opposite positions on the same issue, but they both ignore the fact there is NO evidence anybody in Congress intends to introduce legislation enacting a total ban on guns. Most people agree the original intent of the second amendment was to provide for a militia, something most people agree we no longer need. The supreme court later ruled it applied to defense of one's home, person, etc., against persons with unlawful intent. I have never heard a compelling argument for why any civilian should have assault weapons even when they are only semi-automatic. I have also never heard a compelling argument for taking all guns away from civilians. Holding fast to extreme positions is not the anwer. The horse is out of the barn on this, so we have to deal with the situation as it exists today, not project it to some unrealistic potential future. Is it possible for us to use a little common sense on this issue to reach a compromise? I hope so.

45) Comment by [e-mail] - 04/01/2013

Mr. Cambre is right, and I agree with him that our inalienable rights are not negotiable and are not given to us by Diane Feinstein or those of her ilk. Every once in a while dday198 comes out on the right side, i.e. personal liberty in this instance, of an issue and that's because he has the courage of his own convictions despite what the leaders of his party say; it used to be that most people were that way.

46) Comment by InPVille - 04/01/2013

@postscript56: "If the founding fathers had believed the right to keep and bear arms was inalienable (along with life, libery and the pursuit of happiness), they would have said that." -[**]- The Second Amendment says the same thing via the use of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". "Shall not" means you absolutely may not do it. "Infringed" means to commit a breach of, violate, encroach upon, to break, or to weaken.

47) Comment by Wallop - 04/01/2013

postscript56, in addition to your comments, I would say that the second amendment was not written by the founding fathers, but by the states after the original Constitution was ratified. That amendment, along with the other nine that were first made, were demands by the states to ensure that the new government would not become overbearing. The second amendment did not apply to the states until later when those ignorant of the founders' intent came to power. Why would the states use the U.S. Consitution to limit themselves? The same goes for the first amendment. There is absolutely no "right" mentioned in that. It was intended to apply only to the federal Congress. Jefferson stated quite clearly (I'm not going back to look up where) that the states retained the right to decide what speech and what religion could be allowed or restricted. The idiotic notion that no restrictions can be placed on any speech was "discovered" in the Constitution by activist Supreme Court Justices some 20 years ago.

48) Comment by postscript56 - 04/01/2013

But your rights ARE subject to negotiation. The freedom to worship to does not include the freedom to practice human sacrifice in the name of worship. The freedom of speech does not include the right to slander someone. Your rights are restricted in all sorts of ways deemed preferable in a large and diverse population. If the founding fathers had believed the right to keep and bear arms was inalienable (along with life, libery and the pursuit of happiness), they would have said that. They didn't. Cambre can believe it is an inalienable right if he wishes, but he'd be wrong.

49) Comment by Chucky - 04/01/2013

As the man said dday198 , "That's an option" . I do believe and agree with the letter and think of the gun as the 'Great Equalizer'

50) Comment by dday198 - 04/01/2013

you'll get my gun when you pry my cold dead finger from the trigger

51) Comment by Bighug - 04/01/2013

Good letter. Those who would take guns from people who now may legally have them refuse to understand simple logic. As for those who illegally possess guns, the laws are already on the books.

52) Comment by Whatnow - 03/01/2013

How many innocent children did the government kill in Waco? Should someone take away ATF's weapons? But, it's okay. It's the government.

53) Comment by Whatnow - 03/01/2013

Bravo, Mr. Cambre. Well said.

54) Comment by Attila - 03/01/2013

Mr. Cambre, your letter makes too much sense for the myopic people obsessed with banning guns to understand. Perhaps if one day they themselves were put in the position of the elderly person you described they may. Absent that, you are preaching to the choir of us who agree with you, and the timid among us that falsely believe that if no one has a gun then they will be safe. It is a shame that they allow the people who allow fear to influence their mental acuity to vote.