Letter: Second Amendment protects us all

My interest is always piqued by a letter signed by a “professor,” because I can be reasonably certain that it will be filled with fuzzily thought-out claptrap and jibber-jabber. Robert Kraemer’s recent rant, “NRA doesn’t care about gun deaths,” (Jan 4) did not disappoint.

The main purpose of the Second Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution is to ensure that the United States is able to maintain a standing army of citizen soldiers to protect us against an abusive or oppressive government. It was not enacted to assure hunters of their right to carry guns. It certainly was not enacted to guarantee the mentally deranged the right to mow down theaters full of people or classrooms full of children.

It will be that oppressive government, however, that finally succeeds in destroying our right to “keep and bear arms,” so be careful what you wish for.

Do I have answers on how to diagnose and treat mental illness? I am not a psychologist. I’m not a psychiatrist. We do have adequate information from professional profilers to be able to guess who might be in need of help in that direction. We need a way to see that those people get the help they need.

Taking our guns away will not solve the problem. Lunatics who wish to take human lives will find a way to accomplish that end, no matter how many of us law-abiding citizens comply with anti-gun legislation. Murder is already against the laws of both God and man. If someone is intent on murder, do you think for one second he’s going to worry about whether his gun is legal?

We also need guns to protect ourselves and our homes and families. Home invasions are unfortunately becoming a common crime. Two of my granddaughter’s friends were recent victims. Thank God they were not killed by the gun-toting “perp.” He stole their wallets and cellphones and left. If there’s a next time, they might not be so lucky. I hope they buy a gun of their own and learn how to use it properly.

Harriet O. ST. Amant

retired teacher

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Whatnow - 19/01/2013

DMJ, "Debate the actual legislation before the hypothetical legislation no one has introduced." Do you mean like all the hypothetical lies that weren't discussed during the Obamacare "You have to pass it to know what's in it" comment? We are now finding out a lot of those "hypothetical" secrets that were never introduced with that joke of a bill. Burn us once.... Then, there was "“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making under $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains, not any of your taxes.” said by Obama. Really? Burn us twice.... kinda makes you not trust much of anything coming out of this administration or Senate. Wording is just a slight of hand with them.

2) Comment by Whatchange - 18/01/2013

Tea_Slayer: Oh man you got me, I said insure instead of ensure, yep, yep, yep you got me. I through with this, you have no argument and you know it, that's why you're resorting to the personal attack.

3) Comment by billynurse - 18/01/2013

Amen, Harriet O. None are so blind as they who will not see the dangers of an increasingly powerful Federal government.

4) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 18/01/2013

Whatchange...really? It's quite simple. For a clause to be independent, it HAS to be able to stand on its own as a sentence. "A well-regulate..." can not stand on its own, no matter how much you object to it. I didn't make up that rule. You used it incorrectly. Deal with the fact that you were wrong. And it's ensure, not insure.. more grammar that you are incapable of comprehending. Again, please show me the verb in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." I can't wait...

5) Comment by Whatchange - 18/01/2013

Tea_Slayer: here is DMJ in his own words: "I think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed outright". Now the word "repeal" means, "removal or reversal of a law", maybe I'm reading him wrong but that tells me he believes the 2nd Amendment should be removed or rewritten to remove guns from the people, maybe you of he can explain....... Now, as for the "comma" it is a simple "grammar rule", nothing was misstated, no matter how you look at it, both parts stand on their own, meaning the comma makes it two independent causes, a well regulated militia, and the right of the people. Or better put, a comma is used to join two independent clauses/ simple sentence that can stand by itself, see how simple that is, again nothing was misstated. Now, when people start using words such as "gun nuts" & "gun lovers" one can only take "gun hater" from that. Its real simple here, I believe in the right to bear arms, I also believe with that right comes certain responsibilities,I don't believe the average person need to own military style weapons or bullet proof armor for that matter. I'm not sure what you believe in, it appears you are trying to say the 2nd Amendment was to insure a "well regulated militia" and not the right of the people to bear arms, please clear it up for me. That "well regulated militia" you keep talking about and keep pointing out in the 2nd Amendment, you know the part before the "comma" is "The US Military". Your argument just goes to further my position on two independent causes. Anyway have a nice day.

6) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 18/01/2013

whatchange: huh??? Yes, we can agree to disagree. You misstated a grammar rule to support your position. Sorry if I called you on it, but for you to then falsely claim that both DMJ and I " feel they should be outlawed all together, all guns should be confiscated from free people at gun point and destroyed.for" is the laziest argument you have put forth yet. At no point have I advocated gun confiscation and DMJ (being attached by the gun lovers) has had to constantly reiterate that he is not calling for gun confiscation. And here i though we were actually having a reasoned debate. I guess i was wrong.

7) Comment by ScotB - 17/01/2013

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". Pretty simple. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right, so this is settled as a matter of law. The Supreme Court has also ruled that reasonable restrictions are permissable. So that is what the debate is about. What is reasonable? 98% of gun deaths are by weapons that are not defined as part of the "assault weapon" ban. I carry a gun because carrying my own policeman is too heavy.

8) Comment by Whatchange - 17/01/2013

DMJ & Tea_Slayer, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I'm not giving anymore and y'all haven't give any. I will freely admit we need change in the gun laws, y'all still feel they should be outlawed all together, all guns should be confiscated from free people at gun point and destroyed. But hey, it was fun disagreeing with y'all, have a nice day.

9) Comment by wadep66 - 17/01/2013

Attila: Please define libtard. I'm assuming it is a derogatory remark, made to deflect the fact that you can't actually discuss something without insulting the opposition. The pro-gun folks would probably like it if you wouldn't chime in with childish rhetoric while trying to explain the constitution to the adults. You also obviously didn't take the time to read what was clearly explained about what the Surpreme Court has said about what "not be infringed means". I will now ignore every statement you make.

10) Comment by DMJ - 17/01/2013

And speaking of freedom of speech, it's well-known that government, at all levels, has placed limits on free speech (and of religion, the press and assembly) when such speech can undermine public safety, the safeguarding of which is a fundamental role of government. What's that old saying.... "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" yet we regulate speech but not guns (worse than sticks and stones, in my opinion)?

11) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 17/01/2013

Whatchange, if we are going to use grammar rules to interpret the 2nd Amendment then we need to realize that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a subordinate (or dependent) clause as it can not stand on its own as a sentence. It is not an independent clause, by definition. The easiest way to tell if a clause is independent it to say it alone. If it can act alone as a sentence, it is an independent clause, if not it is dependent. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is NOT a sentence, therefore it is not an independent clause. Sorry.

12) Comment by DMJ - 17/01/2013

No one dies when people interpret the 1st Amendment differently. They just get offended.

13) Comment by Whatchange - 17/01/2013

Actually, it comes down to grammar rules, and this rule makes it two different independent causes. Now, by your assessment we should repeal a majority of the constitution. Lets take the 1st Amendment, "freedom of speech", it is widely taken advantage of, the media is the biggest abuser, then you have people such as the lady in DS with the finger fashioned out of lights and people who burn the American flag. Do you really believe our founding fathers had all this in mind when they came up with the 1st Amendment. Now we all know people argument over the 1st Amendment as much as they do the 2st Amendment so should we repeal it or just do away with it.

14) Comment by Being_Stupid - 17/01/2013

I agree the 2nd Amendment is important. But what good is the 2nd Amendment if you do not own property worth protecting anymore?

15) Comment by DMJ - 17/01/2013

Thanks, whatchange for being reasonable and open-minded. Although, I must admit...it seems very absurd that the placement of a comma could (should) make that much of a difference. It comes down to semantics? Actually, not even semantics, but punctuation?? I'll go ahead and say it: I think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed outright. Stay with me here... if for no other reason than it is extremely ambiguous and poorly worded. Hundreds of years later, some people think only military, police and security should be armed and cite the 2nd Amendment; others think that a militia is any one person and that "well-regulated" basically means nothing and they cite the 2nd Amendment too. It's insane. It doesn't matter what the founders thought. They're dead; they don't have to deal with the fallout; we do. Plus, they were wrong about lots of other stufff that we've since changed. They knew that would happen; that's why we have the Elastic Clause. If we truly think it's a fundamental right to have a gun, then such legislation should stand on its own merits, not the myriad interpretations of a poorly written amendment that no one agrees on, that people cherrypick and customize to fit their own idea of what sensible gun laws are.

16) Comment by nimby? - 17/01/2013

DMJ , nor am I and they shouldn't be . the problem being we are unable to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't as we are yet unable to identify them . blanket legislation , we all face the same scrutiny , regardless .

17) Comment by Whatchange - 17/01/2013

First off I am a hunter, I own center-fire, rim-fire and breech load rifles, black power weapons, shotguns, and pistols, here is my take on the whole thing. The average Joe has no business owning a military style rifle or a magazine that holds 20, 30, 50 rounds or a drum magazine. These type weapons and magazines are reserved for military and law enforcement. There is wrong with closing the loop hole in gun shows, I have to have a background check run in a store or pawn shop, I should have to have the same at a gun show, it only makes sense. I don't see where President Obama is making outrages demands on our rights to own arms, What I do see by reading what he is proposing, is our state, local, and federal governments have failed to do their jobs, they are the ones that have allowed the nuts cases to buy arms. That being said, the 2nd Amendment was enacted to allowed hunters the right to carry weapons, as well as every person/people. It clearly states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. That well regulated militia is the United States military. It then goes on to say, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, between the words "state" and "the" is a comma, that means there are two independent causes, The right of the people to bear arms (yes this includes hunters), and a well regulated militia the United States military. I firmly believe our foundering fathers knew many men fed and still feed their families through hunting and insured their right to do so by placing that comma into the sentence. Now on what is being proposed, I believe President Obama has taken a well balance, practical, common sense approach to insuring we keep our rights to bear arms and keep us safe, without taking away any of our 2nd Amendment rights. I also don't believe throwing $500million at the problem is going to fix it, enforcing the pre-existing and new laws will. Sorry DMJ and Tea_Slayer I just don't agree with what y'all believe the 2nd Amendment means and apparently neither does the US Supreme Court and I'm sure y'all and others don't agree with me or the US Supreme Court.

18) Comment by DMJ - 17/01/2013

Nimby, even now, no one is suggesting banning all weapons. Debate the actual legislation before the hypoethical legislation no one has introduced.

19) Comment by nimby? - 17/01/2013

'we cannot legislate responsibility" .

20) Comment by nimby? - 17/01/2013

after any shooting initial reaction from the far left is to ban all weapons , the far right responds , leaving the rest of us closer to center hurling insults at each other . the ar 15 is based on a weapon I never had much confidence in . my unit was among the 1st to be issued the m 16 . it did not perform well in the field so I never considered owning one . it looks scary . but if I did want one , and a couple of large clips , crossed all the t's , dotted all the i's , cleared all the regulations , why should I not be allowed to own one , the government knows I have it and where to find me . it is that if not secured it could possibly get into the wrong hands , the government , the NRA or 10,000 pages of laws cannot make an individual secure their weapons .

21) Comment by DMJ - 17/01/2013

"[The 2nd Amendment] was not enacted to assure hunters of their right to carry guns. It certainly was not enacted to guarantee the mentally deranged the right to mow down theaters full of people or classrooms full of children." Yet, that's exactly what it does. It also ensures that "gun toting perps" have the same easy access to guns as the freedom-loving patriots of the country. Look..no one's going to "take away" your guns. None (count 'em, none) of President Obama's new proposals include siezing of guns already legally aquired. Those guns that do not meet the new regulations will be grandfathered in. Gun rights advocates can never simply respond to the legislation that's on the table; they have to imagine future, more far-reaching legislation that no one has proposed and have knee-jerk reactions to it in letters to the editor. Such approaches are getting harder and harder to take seriously. "We need guns to protect our homes and families." Protect them from what? People with guns? Right.

22) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 17/01/2013

Everyone wants to be a Constitutional originalist until it no longer suits their needs, then we re-write the history like the NRA and atilla below are doing (the supreme court does not have the power to change the meaning of the constitution). Tea slayer has it right, even the "originals" regulated arms. >>>>>>>>> I see agagent is still having a conversation null of facts and devoid of reality. Is it really that difficult to grasp the difference between banning guns and regulating them? Ag, join the real conversation. Reality can be fun!!! And, by the way, that conversation is about how we balance gun ownership while making the country safer. No one is coming fo ya guns. >>>>> rgWallace, come back from the fringe.

23) Comment by Lannonmac - 17/01/2013

I am sick of the false bravado of the NRA stooges like Harriet O. ST. Amant, acting as if a bunch of redneck gun owners are the only thing protecting the USA from “tyrannical government”. I guess it gives people sharing this delusional belief some sense of importance, that they are like John Gault standing against the evil government, but the reality is that such notions are just plain silly. Folks no one is talking about taking our guns or infringing on the Second Amendment, so just calm yourself down and get a grip on yourself. I suspect I own and use more firearms than about 90% of the rest of you, but I don’t fear the Government, because I actually paid attention in Civics class and understand that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! You know, it is the notion of participatory democracy that forms the backbone of the USA. I really don’t know where this paranoid delusion that Washington is out to impose tyrannical government came from, but it is obvious that the NRA is doing everything it can to exploit it and stooges like Ms. St. Amant are doing their part to whip people up into a frenzy. Sure there are policies, laws and civic responsibilities that we don’t agree with, but that is just part of being in a population of other human beings, not “tyrannical government.”

24) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 17/01/2013

Attila, your "opinion" is just that. How about you actually address what the Second Congress enacted thought the Militia Acts of 1792 or maybe the Militia Act of 1903 which formalized the National Guard instead of rambling on about what you "think" or "believe". These Acts are not my opinion, but were and are the LAW aka REGULATION. This is the exact response I expected, none...

25) Comment by Attila - 17/01/2013

If does not make a bit of difference if the second amendment says "well regulated militia" or " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says what SCOTUS determines it says and means..and they have determined that it says and means that American citizens have a right to arms that shall not be infringed....end of lesson. Also that lame argument from the libtards that the military only had muskets when the Constitution was written is nothing more than a strawman. I believe the founders were concerned about government that could become confiscatory, overbearing, excessively tax the citizenry, and become generally out of control. To that end if today's military has "assault" weapons, the citizenry is entitled to the same level of arms. Just my opinion. It is worth no more or less than those like TeaSlayer, Postscript, and Maelstrom....So if some of you are not concerned with the direction of your government, the taxes you pay and what the are spent and overspent on, or that criminals are better armed than the police go right on living in your fantasy world. Just keep in mind that an armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

26) Comment by [e-mail] - 17/01/2013

"...shall not be infringed." That's clear enough to counter any muddled, fuzzily thought out talking point that gun foes drag up; including a pack of herded and thought controlled children.

27) Comment by nimby? - 17/01/2013

several thoughts ; kits can be bought to modify weapons giving them the appearance of an assault weapon . doesn't make them any deadlier , it just gives the appearance . don't ban "assault" weapons just put further restrictions on them . if someone passes all the codes allow the purchase . I'd love to own a tank , not because I'm some nut but that they're fun to drive . maybe I am a nut .

28) Comment by agagent - 17/01/2013

We want the law-abiding citizens to be armed, if they want to be armed, and guns taken away from those who should not have them. I read a survey of criminals that revealed that 34% did not succeed in a planned crime because the intended victim had a weapon, 40% change their minds about the crime because they knew or suspected the intended victim was armed, and the vast majority knew of other criminals who were deterred by intended victims who were armed.

29) Comment by Maelstrom - 17/01/2013

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Liberals ignore the second clause, conservatives ignore the first. But both are present. The purpose of the second Amendment was not to protect us from out oppressive govt. It was to protect all from an invasion. That's why the original Constitution placed the Militia under the control of the President (see Article 2). That being said, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says arms, not firearms or guns. Even Scalia and Thomas have said that reasonable limits can be placed on arms (or do people believe that all are entitled to keep a tank or a nuclear weapon, clearly fitting under arms). The issue is not whether we can limit the arms available, but what is the reasonable place arms should be limited.

30) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 17/01/2013

Ms St Amant must not have taught history because the Second Amendment was not enacted " to protect us against an abusive or oppressive government." That is the claptrap the gun lovers keep pushing and is completely bogus. It was enacted so that the States could develop their militias. The Founders did not want a standing Regular Army but realized soon after the founding of the county that they needed some kind of defense. That came through the militias and citizen soldiers. Th preamble to the Second Amendment was placed there with purpose (not to be overlooked as it so often is by the gun lovers). Would it surprise you to know that a mere 5 months after the ratification of the Bill of Rights that the Second Congress enacted the Militia Acts of 1792, thereby REGULATING the militia as stated in the Second Amendment. It probably does surprise most of you due to your political leanings and inability to think beyond ideology. All able bodied white males 18-45 years old were required to own a musket, ammo and field gear. Now, here is where the gun nuts turn off their brains. The Second Militia Act states "That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements;" It's actually a good read since this was the basis for the State Militias aka National Guard and quite well regulated --- http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm (I've posted this before but for some reason, there were no refutations or comments. I wonder why...)

31) Comment by Elderly Man - 17/01/2013

A man can never have enough shotguns but everyman needs at least one of them.

32) Comment by postscript56 - 17/01/2013

I suppose when you finally realize most of the country does not subscribe to your kooky and paranoid fears about the socialist government takeover of just about everything, you start feeling oppressed. Gun nuts always argue criminals won't obey the law so there's no point in a law. But recent mass murderers were not guilty of any criminal acts until they used the legal guns. That argument is phony. Better recognition of the metally disturbed? Excuse me but that's a social engineering program funded by tax dollars...just the kind of thing you folks always oppose. That argument is also phony unless you drop your opposition to government intervention. Protect yourself from home invasion? A perfectly legitimate need. So how many folks are trying to invade your home? If you think you need an assault rifle with two 30 round clips taped together you should have moved a long time ago. It is phony to argue you can't protect yourself without an assault rifle. Talk about fuzzy thinking...

33) Comment by Attila - 16/01/2013

God bless you Harriet. We need more teachers like you.