Letter: Second Amendment confers a right

At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, the people of a young nation had just gained their independence by defeating a country that had the greatest military in the world. At Concord in 1775, a confrontation between British troops and Minutemen occurred when the Minutemen received word that the British were after the people’s gunpowder. After a skirmish, the British searched house to house for individual “military stores.” The British were trying to confiscate and control all military-type arms that the Minutemen could use to defend their liberty.

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and was passed because most people believed the Constitution would not restrain the central government from abridging individual rights. The Bill of Rights would stop a centralized government from encroaching on the inalienable rights of the people. Therefore, the Bill of Rights was adopted to protect the people from an oppressive central government. When debating the formation of the Constitution and the first 10 amendments, the framers wanted to protect the people’s rights from being infringed again by an all-powerful centralized government. The second of those amendments was adopted to defend their newly gained freedoms.

When the Second Amendment states in part “arms shall not be infringed,” the arms refer to military arms. The framers wanted the people to have access to military arms like the British to defend individual fundamental rights. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights protects the people’s unalienable right — not a right granted by the Constitution or by government. The original purpose of the Second Amendment was to stop Congress from making laws that allowed any infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear military-style arms.

“As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” — Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Published by Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403.

“Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition ... — totally illegal.” (The New Yorker, July 1976) by Nelson T. Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc.

Ken Rachal

retired professor

Thibodaux

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 04/02/2013

@jedleland: "the Southern Poverty Law Center does a great job of tracking far right (and left) hate groups. . ." -[**]- Help me out here. The following reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups cites 186 separate Ku Klux Klan (KKK) groups, 196 neo-Nazi groups, 111 white nationalist groups, 98 white power skinhead groups, 39 Christian Identity groups, 93 neo-Confederate groups, 113 black separatist groups, 159 patriot movement groups, 90 general hate groups (subdivided into anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Holocaust denial, racist music, radical traditionalist Catholic and others) -[**]- These are sub-grouped as follows: Anti-LGBT, Anti-Immigration, Anti-Muslim, Black separatist, Black Supremacy, Christian Identity, Holocaust denial, Ku Kluz KlAN, Neo-Confederate, Neo-Nazi, White power music, White power skinheads, Radical traditional Catholicism, White nationalist, Other -[**]- These all appear to the right to me. Which ones are Leftist Hate Groups?

2) Comment by HRoark - 01/02/2013

Vietvet58, sorry you got shot up during your military service and its indeed unfortunate that these things happen to anybody. And, I'm glad you have your guns locked away, but your statement that "Obama, Biden and Napolitano have "Declared War" upon all gun owners in this Nation, much like was done by Hitler and to the people of Vietnam" is not based on any factual evidence and is not true, on several levels. Who were the unarmed citizens you base your comments on and who on the other side was armed? Simply conjuring up a fictitious script does not enhance your argument. If the citizens in your hypothetical had been armed, would they now be safe and sound...somehow I don't think so. Again, as has been stated many times, nobody is proposing taking away anybody's guns. The argument is about regulation and documentation, just like we do with driving and immigration. If you are opposed to gun regulation, then lets eliminate drivers license regulations. Don't we have a constitutional right to travel freely without government interference?

3) Comment by Vietvet58 - 01/02/2013

Ladies and Gentlemen, I see a lot of valid arguements back and forth here which is healthy to keep us all up to speed on what other facets of any subject may be. Facets we may not have considered that may or may not change our personal beliefs. I served in the US Army in Vietnam. I was wounded by rounds many times, mostly flesh wounds. I got myself patched up and returned to my unit 5 times. My last injury was much more severe, bullets to the upper body which ended my Military career. I have seen first hand what happens to a population of "Un-Armed" citizens and in is NOT a pretty sight. Greed and tyranny take over and the citizens had NO WAY to protect themselves for the horrible things they were subjected to, in-humane treatment, rape, child molestation, murder, theft of all their worldy possessions again, with NO WAY to protect themselves. As a God fearing man, I believe we were given the right to defend ourselves, families, friends and neighbors by God himself. Upon our driving the British out of our Nation with force, our Constitution was born and Bill of Rights were adopted by some very wise men that had the foresight to etch in history, what is required to keep America a free Country. In my humble opinion, we do not need more gun laws or restrictions, we need to ENFORCE the laws already on the books. As Parents, Grandparents and gun owners, we have a responsibility and obligation to safe guard our weapons to keep them out of the hands of children, mentally ill family members AND intruders bent on stealing from us when we are not at home. What is a human life worth? I asked myself this very question when I went to BassPro in Denham Springs to shop for a good, secure gun safe. Not trying to brag or put on any airs about myself, I bought a 12 gun steel safe with a keypad lock and with taxes, spent a little over $1,000.00. Absolutely worth the money to prevent my weapons from falling into the wrong hands. If it saves just one person from even being wounded by one of my guns, I will get on my knees and thank God for the money I spent and the actions I took. I do have a CCW permit and carry where legally allowed. I have twarted 2 robberies and one beating of a man in the parking lot of the Mall of Louisiana just before this past Christmas. I see comments about refusing to fire upon the American Government. Obama, Biden and Napolitano have "Declared War" upon all gun owners in this Nation, much like was done by Hitler and to the people of Vietnam. We all know the outcome of those gun bans, don't we.......... Now that our POTUS has PUBLICLY declared war against us AND asked the top brass of OUR Military if they would fire on American Citizens, then it becomes an "Us against Them" possition. What is the difference between the British back then and the tyranny being shoved down our throats today? No difference other than a better style of dress suits....... We hear of threats of sending Swat type teams door to door to confiscate our guns. We see Military manuvers in Houston and Galveston (live ammunition used in Galveston) breaking federal law prior to declaring "Martial Law". Personally, Any UN or foreign troops that set foot upon my property with the intent of taking my method of protection away from me, will be fired upon as an "Enemy" of all Americans. I my loose my life but, I would not be much of a man if I did not do everything in my power to protect my loved ones and friends. I have volunteered to put my life on the line in a battle against communism once before and will gladly do it again, with much more resolve and motivation than when I was a young man. I am sure there will be negative replies to my comment here but quite frankly, I don't care. I am here to impress one entity, and that is God himself. Thank you for reading my comments and God Bless each and every one of you.

4) Comment by jedleland - 01/02/2013

Then i misunderstood. Youre right it wont ever happen here but where is the paranoid fun in that?

5) Comment by Chucky - 01/02/2013

jedleland - I do mean i will stake my life and yours and future generations that it will never happen in America, In fact i am, because am not arming for going to war with the USA will fight for America never to over throw it, believe in the vote. The examples of armed conflict are current, the oldest is Cuba and that was in the 50's . I arm myself for the intruder the criminal and target shooting. Blessed Be.

6) Comment by jedleland - 01/02/2013

As for spare tires i carry only one its not automatic and has yet to be used to kill a room full of 1st graders. i wasnt bullied as a child i have no self esteem issues, my reproductive organs work ok and i dont need a gun. Mathew 5.

7) Comment by jedleland - 01/02/2013

Apples and oranges. those are countries that are culturally snd econmically utterly different and ironically in several cases are or were right wing dictatorships supported by the usa in the interests of realpolitik. compare ourselves to canada or the uk or some such and hezbollah isnt a country and what do large mountainous apes have to do with anything? Lumping the richest nation in the world, the largest evonomy, with third world hotspots and in the case of the middle east stifling religious conservatism is stretching. I have seen other posters resort to recalling instances of govt aggression from the century NEFORE last to justify modern paranoia and its just laughable. Unlike most of the armchair geopoliticists on this page i have first hand experience of those african dictatorships you reference and what the thumb of oppressive govt on a terrorised native people really is and buddy the silly fantasies gun nuts have about fighting off federal us troops is just a juvenile joke. It might happen here? Not likely but ive seen it happen and when it does all the well armed civilian yahoos and glock strokers will have their heroic fantasies dashed on the rock of brutal reality pretty darn quick

8) Comment by Chucky - 01/02/2013

“fetishism appeal stem from a fear, imaginary threat, fringe elements, pathetic souls, warrior garbage,” Libya,Tunisia and Egypt, Hezbollah , Lebanon ,Jordan, revolutions in south America, gorilla war, African atrocities by armed para military and armed government, oh and one of the Lefts favorite Son Fidel Castro. Can not happen here in America I stake my life and yours and future generations on that. Jedlieland do you even carry a spare tire ? cus in your world there are no flats.

9) Comment by MBW - 01/02/2013

The First Amendment confers a right too....but we regulate that with very little fuss. Heck, you can't even say certain words on TV. AND if you're a protester, the government can dictate where you're allowed to do that. So, we can regulate curse words and people who are picketing, but we can't regulate weapons that kill people? What is the logic of that??

10) Comment by jedleland - 01/02/2013

all you need is love man. put down the guns and pick up some flowers. let love rule. turn that other cheek, walk that extra mile, forgive those trespasses, man that hebrew dude was some sandle-wearing sappy liberal wasnt he?

11) Comment by DMJ - 01/02/2013

Nimby, to answer your question... No, I can't tell the future. That'd be neat though.

12) Comment by jedleland - 01/02/2013

This brings up larger questions to ponder for instance why does gun fetishism appeal to the conservative element? It seems to stem from a fear of government intrusion and takeover but liberals by nature aren’t afraid of government and see it as an organ of use, an extension of us all, staffed by citizens for citizens. Sure it can get up to no good but by and large its benign if inefficient, certainly nothing to fear and no need for firearms to protect against this imaginary threat. That’s why these groups I posted the link too are uniformly right wing and the FBI has had to up training to prepare for these militia and sovereign citizen threat. By that same token liberalism favors multiculturalism while conservatism doesn’t. liberals embrace gay rights and have no problem with race mixing be it societal or sexual. That’s what makes them liberal. What few ‘racist’ left wing groups there are tend to be black nationalists and are so small and ineffective as to by something of a joke, like that black panther guy in Ohio last year who turned out to be all by himself, and left as soon as asked. Some threat! Meanwhile far right groups like the KKK and Aryan nations have multiplied enormously since Obama came along although ironically some of them now welcome black members like in the Louisiana shooting case, as they cannot be too picky about membership! What is a liberal or far left terrorist threat? I don’t know of atheist groups attacking and killing Christians (while quite a few mulsims and seiks have been targeted in the last few years). Liberals don’t care for guns so they don’t shoot up temples or mosques or federal buildings very often. Girly pacifists remember? As our friends on the right keep reminding us liberals are pantywaists and wussies, and hide from any and all confrontation. This seems to extend to extremist violent activity too, so while die hard far right sovereigns are goading police into shoot outs and amassing explosives, lefties are whining on the interwebs and writing poems and clogging up egg head university classes. I guess you could point to 60s style weather underground movements but they have long since fizzled out. Europe has a few anarchists that explode and burn some cars every few months, but not with any real impact. They are just too few and too ineffective. This extremist activity is driven by paranoia and fear – typically of the government, or other religions, or other races, or people simply not like us. For this fear protection is needed, and that’s where the guns and bombs come in. some fringe elements try to make offense the best defense and that’s your McVeighs and other nutcases. You’ll always have malcontents and the dregs looking for purpose amongst other lost and pathetic souls (hence Marchiafava). Are all right wingers terror threats? Of course not. That would be idiotic to say. but I posit that if they choose to use arms illegally against police or another racial group or religious group or government representative, and do so with an ideological purpose (rather than say just shooting a cop to escape arrest for an unrelated crime) then they will typically represent a far-right extremism. Ask a cop if hes more worried about pulling over a car full of joyriders and dopedealers, or a car full of patriots, firearms, and fertilizer. Liberals just don’t go in for that quasi militaristic weekend warrior garbage. Were just too wussy.

13) Comment by jedleland - 01/02/2013

here is the link to the timeline. this only refers to known incidents involving far right activity since Oklahoma city. you can look up extremist groups of other types too if you like but they just pale by comparison. liberals are too scared of guns and too cissified to go on cop shooting rampages. intersting list makes you think twice about those proud patriots standing up against the tyrrany of forced lightbulb purchases. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

14) Comment by jedleland - 01/02/2013

the Southern Poverty Law Center does a great job of tracking far right (and left) hate groups and domestic terror threats. They estimate that since Obama was elected those number have gone from 150 or so individual organisations to over 5,000, with almost all teh griown on teh far right nazi/KKK/fascist underground. They also have a timeline of domestic terror incidents perpetrated by "people who feel that it is a possibility and would NEVER be the ones" including militias, nazi separatists, aryan nations, soverign citizens, and other real winners. see if this recent report from right here in louisiana sounds familiar "Seven people with ties to the antigovernment “sovereign citizens” movement allegedly ambush and murder Louisiana sheriff’s deputies Brandon Nielsen, 34, and Jeremy Triche, 27. The attack comes in a trailer park near New Orleans, where the deputies pursued suspects following the shooting and wounding of another deputy working as an off-duty security guard at an oil refinery. Those arrested include the group’s leader, Terry Lyn Smith, 44, Smith’s wife, Chanel Skains, and his sons, Derrik Smith and Brian Smith. Others are Brittany Keith, Kyle David Joekel and Teniecha Bright. Brian Smith is charged with first-degree murder and the others with related charges. The group, which traveled the country doing construction work, possess a stockpile of weapons. Its members have outstanding warrants in Nebraska, Tennessee and Louisiana." Does the name McVeigh mean anything? apart from being Marchiafava's hero. .

15) Comment by nimby? - 01/02/2013

"if the govt wants your guns it can take them and no number of yahoos hiding out in bunkers is going to stop them" , nuff said ...

16) Comment by jedleland - 01/02/2013

"these people who feel that it is a possibility will NEVER be the ones" Never? a 5 year old kid is being held hostage right now in a hole in the ground in Alabama for 4 days, and a bus driver was killed in front of a bunch of grade schoolers because this paranoid old man felt it was a real possibility that the government was comin for his guns. if the govt wants your guns it can take them and no number of yahoos hiding out in bunkers is going to stop them - this aint 80s afghanistan

17) Comment by foldgers - 01/02/2013

Whatnow said this, "If by chance they do allow civilians to buy them, said person should have to jump through all kinds of hoops and pay a butt load of money for the privilege. Common sense people, plain old common sense." - - Really? So you are saying that only the wealthy should be able to legally own this type of gun? In your world then, the wealthy and the criminals will be the ones with guns. I feel bad for the poor and middle classes. But to all of you who say people are crazy to think that the US government may one day try to disarm the population and become a dictatorship that may rule with fear, you may just be right. But two things: 1) These people who feel that is a possibility will NEVER be the ones who go on shooting rampages. They are the ones who legally own those guns and are responsible with them. 2) If by some crazy chance, these conspiracy theories come true, I'd bet a buffalo nickle that you unarmed folks would be running to us for protection...not to mention if there was ever a zombie apocalypse.

18) Comment by jedleland - 01/02/2013

Its not only irrelevant its dishonest. The march in question was organized by the ‘countryside alliance’ which was and is a front group for a number of smaller right wing factions, well funded but with a façade of ‘grass roots’ kinda like the tea party here. It didn’t spring up until the UK labour party won another election much to the dismay of the conservatives which is more left wing than the republicans here but is still dominated by white angry people in an ever-more multicultural society, kinda like the tea party. The labour government had made various efforts to ban fox hunting with dogs a blood sport founded on cruelty and enjoyed by the rich and well heeled squires who funded this whole anti ban effort while conning regular rubes into thinking they were part of some sort of grass roots effort – kinda like the tea party. Fox hunting with dogs serves no rural purpose is outdated like dog fighting or any other animal cruelty sport and a majority wanted it banned for years. The house of commons passed the ban easily but the unelected lords overturned it against the will of the people. The lords are typically your nobility and gain their seats by succession and noble lineage and not election. In other words its who your father was and how much land and money he has. They played it up as a matter of freedom, when they meant a matter of freedom for them to kill foxes for fun. Animal cruelty in the UK is a much bigger issue and more important than to us here. Anyways parliament allows the lords veto to be overridden after three tries and on the last try the ban passed by 336 – 186 so a big victory. Currently over 80% of brits support the ban and that number creeps ever up. The rural job losses that were warned about never occurred either turned out to be a lot of fearmongering and as the video indicates, or any tea party rally, its not hard to gin up far right doofuses with anti govt doom-mongering. These people are on perma-outrage too just like, I don’t know, the tea party. These people represent only a small southern faction ,are well out of the mainstream are rigid and dogmatic and deal in anger and outrage in the UK and have lost support every year since this march and are viewed by the public very negatively now kinda like the tea party (now running at 8% and falling). The conservative party took over a couple of years ago and they thought that it would be repealed and they would be taken care of but the Prime minister wants nothing to do with them and has publically said the ban will stand on his watch and that the country has moved on. He has to work for a larger electorate and was happy to use the countryside fools for votes but after the election he cast them aside as they suckers they are and pursued his own more centrist agenda. Kinda like the tea party. This march had nothing to do with ‘govt taking your guns’ as that happened in 1996 after over a dozen grade schoolers were killed in Scotland. The brits learned their lesson in 1996 and gun violence is almost nonexistent now. Even the police don’t have guns. This march was about fox hunting. That’s a misrepresentation by the video. Check out the guys other videos he has on youtube and see what kind of far right goober youre citing here. He’s a real winner. Unlike the tea party.

19) Comment by nimby? - 01/02/2013

DMJ , HRoark , can either of you guarantee this government will NEVER seek an all out ban on personal ownership ?

20) Comment by HRoark - 01/02/2013

So is Whatnow suggesting that the Brits are setting a good example we should follow, or that every country has it's share of gun nuts? Or are the Brits an intercontinental example of nimby?''s example of envious behavior? I don't see the relevance of that youtube post.

21) Comment by Whatnow - 01/02/2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZtdFtsXBCY&sns=fb

22) Comment by DMJ - 01/02/2013

Good point, HRoark. Since advocates, including the letter writer, love to invoke Hitler and the Nazis as some kind of cautionary tale about gun confiscation, let's look at this period in History as an example of what actually happens when a faction of the government siezes power... Consider the Night of Long Knives (a carefully coordinated attack on senior leadership in the SS, the SA, the Gestapo, the Army, the Nazi Party, the media and some churches). The people that were arrested and executed without trial, for the most part, had guns. They didn't lose shootouts to government troops who had larger clips or better weapons. Guns weren't even a factor. In most cases, these victims received polite invites in the mail, asking them to come somewhere, and when they complied, they were arrested. Überraschung!! Or, someone came to their house, knocked, smiled and politely said, "Would you mind coming with us, please?" Or they were pulled over while driving their cars. It was diabolical. The political opponents were top-ranking military and police; they had guns. They didn't use them because of the circumstances of their arrests and if they had, they would have been killed anyway. After that, paranoia and fear took over. People turned on each other to garner favor with the government. No one risked seeming disloyal. Heck, most of the (Aryan) population of Germany cheered the event, and commended Hitler for his resolve. They truly believed Hitler had not staged a coup, but had thwarted one. During the 30s, in Germany, the only people who's guns were siezed were the Jews, communists, socialists and eventually Social Democrats. Of course, it wasn't just their guns that were siezed; it was all their other rights and possessions as well. The vast majority of the population could still have guns if they wanted. In fact, gun rights for Aryans were expanded during this time. So... to say that personal possession of guns would undermine government tyranny is absurd. Think about it. What would you do if a couple of government agents and cops came to your door with a search warrant? Shoot them? Of course not. The 2nd Amendment was about maintaining militias due to fear of a large standing army....which we already have in the U.S., which consists of our friends, family and neighbors, which would never turn on us. If the U.S. government wants your guns, they'll take them. The thing is....they don't, so let's worry about real threats, like say....gun violence, rather than imagined threats of government gun-confiscation squads, as if we're living in a George Orwell novel.

23) Comment by HRoark - 31/01/2013

And of what relevance is the second amendment to preventing this government or any other from rolling over those who are in its way? During civil rights, would gun ownership have prevented the tear gas and beatings that those folks endured? No, but it would have gotten them killed. My point is that the second amendment is completely irrelevant in this argument, in addition to the fact that neutralizing the second amendment is not being proposed by any of the gun regulation initiatives.

24) Comment by nimby? - 31/01/2013

Whatnow - ".what name would you give city boy? " . no comment . HRoark , as a Lakota I can testify as to what this government is willing to do to those who are in the way .

25) Comment by HRoark - 31/01/2013

No nimby? thats tribal warfare, or in your example harmless one-up- manship. I'm curious about the whole armed militia rationale for blanket private gun ownership. Who exactly is the militia arming against if not the government? And assuming they are arming against the government, in what world is a bunch or armed Bubbas and Gangstas (city counterpart) an effective deterrent against tyranny, Somalia?

26) Comment by Whatnow - 31/01/2013

nimby? most of the people in my parish used to be country boys, but now the city boys moved here. Do we call them Bubba now? LOL!! Just messing with you.

27) Comment by Whatnow - 31/01/2013

Hey, nimby?, why didn't you call Bubba "country boy"? Shame on you... what name would you give city boy?

28) Comment by nimby? - 31/01/2013

HRoark , reader digest version . Bubba likes guns , the ar15 looks cool , but it serves him no practical purpose , an expensive toy he doesn't need . city boy , who's never held a gun in his life , comes on the TV telling Bubba you don't need this , so Bubba buys one , in essence flipping off city boy . he gets the gun , cleans it , shows it to his friends , plays with it for a few months , then buries it in the back of the gun cabinet . it's a matter of mutual trust . city boy doesn't trust Bubba , and vice versa . they live in different world , until they can come to a mutual agreement this argument will continue .

29) Comment by HRoark - 31/01/2013

In view of our pro gun commentators' arguments that are trending more and more towards a perceived need to potentially defend themselves against our future dystopian government, could you please spin a scenario for us passive Obamacrat skeptics? How might your ownership of larger than, and more than the average number of guns save your version of society and preserve yourselves and your families from the U.S. military (or any other modern military, excepting perhaps the French). The idea that this might happen is ludicrous in the extreme, but I can look beyond that and simply marvel that you think having a bunch of guns will be helpful if it happens. This really is the core of the second amendment argument, and you wave it like an 18th century militia banner. I would prefer an overtly selfish argument (i.e., I like guns and want them) to this stupid "just in case they turn on us" argument. Do you really hear yourself....really?

30) Comment by nimby? - 31/01/2013

if a person from D C goes to Maryland to purchase a weapon he will have to provide identification . upon seeing this is a DC resident can the Maryland gun dealer deny the sale ?

31) Comment by nimby? - 31/01/2013

so gun laws in Montana , western Texas should be the same as in Chicago or D.C. ? different environments , people . blanket solutions will not work , we aren't one size fits all ...

32) Comment by Chucky - 31/01/2013

OK, DMJ it is a Federal issue (see, we can agree on somethings that’s a start) and I believe they need pass no laws on guns particularly when the blood is hot. I stand with the idea and principle that the 2cd shall not be abridged and would not give the Supreme Court any wiggle room for precedence than it has already shown.

33) Comment by DMJ - 31/01/2013

Chucky, the problem with gun rights being a states' rights issue is that if State A has strict gun laws and happens to be located next to State B, then State A's laws really won't matter. It's like how Chicago and D.C. have strict laws yet those laws are negated by the lax laws of the surrounding areas (the whole rest of the country). Gun laws are a lowest common denominator type deal (think: weakest link in a chain analogy). That's why they need to be nationwide.

34) Comment by InPVille - 31/01/2013

The Second Amendment does not confer a right. It recognizes a natural right which preexisted the Constitution and which no government has a right to remove, the natural right of self defense. The government is incapable of guaranteeing that it will protect all citizens in their persons at all times.

35) Comment by Chucky - 31/01/2013

DMJ, I respect your posts and your stand, as i have said before we need people who can show the higher ground, i think you do that. I think of it more as the ' Camel's nose under the tent'. I own no clip over 7, and the only long gun is a shotgun now chopped, No skin from me, It is the current generation that must protect rights for the next or soon the Supreme Court will find a way to give the Government more control as they did with the Interpretation of the sixteen words of the Commerce Clause, sixteen words DMJ . How about this ? This should be State Right and not on a federal level, let each State decide on the current issue and that 'current' issue needs to be defined now and not later as with the health care law. Sorry so wordy.

36) Comment by DMJ - 31/01/2013

Chucky, like I keep saying, let's debate what's actually been proposed, not what might be proposed later. If we're talking about banning assault rifles and large capacity clips and requiring background checks....then let's talk about those things, specifically. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. If gun control advocates offer something further in the future, then we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Until then, let's keep our eye on the ball. Personally, I'd like to overturn the laws specifically designed to keep law enforcement from tracking illegal gun sales. Kind of hard to "enforce the laws already on the books" when they're legally prevented from measures that might actually help them do this. You know?

37) Comment by Whatchange - 31/01/2013

Mr. Rachal, I sorry, if you want to own a military style weapon and a high capacity magazine/clip join the military or law enforcement, military style weapons have no business in civilian life. If by chance they do allow civilians to buy them, said person should have to jump through all kinds of hoops and pay a butt load of money for the privilege. Common sense people, plain old common sense.

38) Comment by nimby? - 31/01/2013

if further gun legislation does not curb the level of violence , what is next ? those leaning left suggest they are not out to take away guns , that there will never be a ban on personal weapons . they speak of more control , limits , reduction . I'm cool with that . but that speaks of an acceptable casualty level . that's not cool . "if we can save one life" we would also be more serious about driving while texting/cell phoning . could have saved a life in Ascension parish last week ...

39) Comment by jedleland - 31/01/2013

ive lived in western modern democracies where people can say what they want, go where they want, buy what they want, and gripe like clueless children about the big arm of oppressive government and what lightbulbs theyre forced to buy at Lowes. also ive lived in povertyridden sub saharan african countries where nonwesterners who arent given the exclusive gold treatment have every reason to fear their government and the disappearances, unmarked graves, torture facilites, suspended laws, political incarceration, corruption, and real fear of that late night knock on your door (if your wealthy enough to own a door). try that for a while before whining about obama and the UN and gun control and tyrrany. makes you thnk long and hard about what tyrrany is, what fear is, and what idiocy is.

40) Comment by Chucky - 31/01/2013

Just take a little right from gun ownership, you know like magazine capacity or amount of ammunition or type, just a little something in the name of the children. After you learn to live with that take just a small very little bit more heck it can wait till the next generation. After years or decades gun right begin to look like the Louisiana coast, eroded away and non existent from the original.

41) Comment by DMJ - 31/01/2013

Jedleland, 10,000 is only how many gun murders. There are an additional 20,000 gun suicides as well. And these figures leave out how many people got shot and survived, most of which will suffer diminished quality of life as a result. Gun advocates will never accept responsibility for any of this, because these tragedies didn't involve them personally. Nevermind that such grim statistics are the direct result of polcies they favor and that any attempt to do something about it is met with fervent opposition from politicians they voted for and interest groups they support. Yeah, yeah, I know...it's guilt by association, for which apologize. Still....I'm not wrong. And until we get gun advocates to at least admit the fact that gun deaths are related to the availibilty of guns and the type of them, we'll never have a rational debate. Advocates think that a 30 round magazine is the difference between a free society and the 4th Reich. Just read the letter above. It's insane.

42) Comment by Attila - 31/01/2013

@jedeland: I must take issue with your statement about the "idiocy" of fearing your own government. I submit that a person making such a statement is the true idiot.

43) Comment by Holinyx - 31/01/2013

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

44) Comment by jedleland - 31/01/2013

as every gun nut reminds us there are prices to freedom. the price for old men with self esteem problems wishing to arm themselves against the big bad world is 10000 gun deaths a year, and classroom full of dead first graders in CT. thats your price and it wil be paid again, and again and again. so be it but dont act surprised or mournful or outraged the next time a school or office or mall suffers another slaughter. yes yes, we know, if youd only been there to stop it etc

45) Comment by jedleland - 31/01/2013

as a final thought i know some of you regulars like to model yourselves as christian folk and ive asked before with no reasonable reply why a christain would ever need a weapon of any kind. i didnt take into account GOP Jesus of course, that white blond blue eyed guy who hates poor moochers, wants you to be wealthy, and bullys gay kids for fun. but aside that, next time you have have that urge to polish your gun (or whatever body part you might also polish that you psychologically substitute for your gun) stop for a moment and go up in the attic and find that dusty bible you put up there 20 years ago. go to Matthew 5 and read verses 7 - 9, and then 38 - 48. then ask yourself which you worship more your god or your gun?

46) Comment by jedleland - 31/01/2013

I say all that not to say we should get rid of all guns. Be at peace gun nuts its not going to ever happen here but the NRA would like you to keep panic buying ammo so go right ahead and get ginned up. Your glocks are safe from obama and the UN. I say it to highlight the idiocy of fearing a big bad government invading your yard when you complain that the same government cant even run a rail system, deliver mail, or negotiate a good deal on a toilet seat. 56 million brits don’t fear government and they aren’t armed. Same with our neighbors to the north and, oh I don’t know, every other developed nation in the world. Are new Zealanders frequently overrun by govt thugs? How about the Japanese? Or danes? Or Irish, or Icelanders? No of course not. Don’t be fools. Be afraid as you want to be and don’t worry your guns are safe (for now!). but give up the adolescent fantasies of fighting off FBI agents with a bible in one hand and your peacemaker in the other. Its not going to happen. There were 30 gun murders for every 100000 people in BR last year, so 970,000 werent murdered. Pretty good odds so why the fear? I don’t need a gun. But then I understand that government is just us, have no self esteem issues wasn’t bullied as a child and my reproductive organs are normal-sized and function as directed. Put away the fear, and put away the guns. That’s no way to live.

47) Comment by jedleland - 31/01/2013

Just cause your paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get ya! I love all the old coots worrying about jackbooted federal agents coming for their firearms. That’s what happens when you disarm people you know its all part of the UN new world order plot. What a crock. Just for fun I looked up the London Evening Standard newspaper today a city I once lived in for a while. The last census gave it 8 million people which is more than our entire state, and many many times more than BR. Know how many shootings in the crime section today? none. zero. There is reference to a gun crime two years ago and there are some other violent crimes reported but no shootings. that’s a very big city, very diverse, with lots of pockets of poverty and lots of racial groupings – yes they have black people there too. now look at the Advocate serving a population of what 400,000 at most? How many firearm killings so far? And we have the right wing survivalist nut in Alabama killing school bus drivers and the old man in Arizona on his shooting spree yesterday. Also another paranoid old fool was arrested for killing a man who mistakenly drove onto his driveway cause of bad GPS. Im not young anymore but see a pattern of fear, paranoia, and age? Its repeated with the commenters here every day it seems. after a bunch of schoolkids were killed in the UK some years ago guns became effectively illegal in all aspects of life personal or otherwise. they took action despite the grumblings of far right gun nuts (they have a few of them as well) Guess what? Less than 100 shootings last year in a 56 million population that (yes) has lots of black people. And are they all huddled up in bunkers scared of the government like that fool in Alabama, or like the paranoid old coots on the advocate? No don’t be stupid! Theyre as free as us. Just not as afraid.

48) Comment by Bwaites985 - 31/01/2013

For all those who support the taking away and limiting the ownership of firearms, you are SHEEP, going quietly to your own demise. Any law that reduces law abiding citizens from owning firearms is a slap in the face to the constitution and all that was intended to protect human rights. If you don't like guns then don't own one. If your scared of guns don't own one. But do not take away rights from honest law abiding citizens who have the right to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

49) Comment by DMJ - 31/01/2013

This whole "guns prevent government takeover of its own country, so they can get your guns" theory is stupid for 4 reasons: 1. No one is proposing confiscation of guns; 2. The U.S. military already has a very large standing army (the fear of which is the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment); 3. If the government really wanted your guns, they'll get them. Just ask David Koresch; 4. Our government and our military is just that: ours. It's made up of our family, friends and neighbors. In what alternate universe would our own democratically elected government want to rule us with a tyrannical iron fist? There are actually many more reasons why this theory is so unlikely that it's dumb and so dumb that it's unlikely, but I'll stick with 4 now. Mr. Rachal's letter is perfect evidence of everything that's wrong with the gun control debate- our fear of imagined threats is preventing us from dealing with real problems.

50) Comment by DMJ - 31/01/2013

Ken appears to be more concerned with the right to keep and bear arms than he is about the effect of that policy. Know how I know? He completely omits the effects of the proliferation of guns in our society. He also omits the bit about "a well-regulated militia." No surprise there. And last I checked, Handgun Control, Inc (who?) isn't proposing any legislation. Let's debate the legislation that's actually been proposed, instead of the agenda of some obscure group from the '70s.

51) Comment by [e-mail] - 31/01/2013

Mr. Rachal's point is well taken and easily understood. Gun control advocates really mean "people control", and if one takes a good look at who wants control over the rest of us, their gun control motive and thus their real agenda might become clear, in spite of their propaganda and dupes that are used to obfuscate it.

52) Comment by nimby? - 31/01/2013

Mr. Rachal in merely echoing a sentiment a good portion of the population shares . paranoia , lack of trust , fear of/from their own government to overstep boundaries . maybe , maybe not . only time will tell .

53) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 31/01/2013

the professor needs to go back to school. The point of the 2nd amendment was that the founders and more importantly, the states, were fearful of a standing army in peacetime. Thus they conferred the right to bear arms in that every able bodied male 19-45 was to be a member of their state's militia (as outlined in the Militia Acts of 1792) As a matter of fact, the following amendment was proposed by Virginia, in lieu of the poorly worded 2nd: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power." or this one from New York: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state. That the militia should not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, insurrection."

54) Comment by Chucky - 31/01/2013

lovemykids - Start with a hand gun then work your way up.

55) Comment by lovemykids - 31/01/2013

Should we as citizens of the USA be allowed to have military style weapons? I want a tank, rocket launcher, maybe a few scud missiles, and what about a small stash of mines to bury in my yard.

56) Comment by Chucky - 31/01/2013

Armed revolution in America would be a last resort but as we have seen and are seeing right now even a heavily armed government can not stand before an armed populace. This last resort can only be possible if citizens have weapons and the founding fathers have tried to make that possible. As I have said in other post we fight for America and not opposing America. ScotB, well said i would hate to be shoot or attacked when on hold.

57) Comment by Bighug - 31/01/2013

Where did the letter say anything about rights to voice an opinion? Probably doesn't matter to swinham, as it is apparent that any opinion more than 36 years old has no validity to him/her.

58) Comment by ScotB - 30/01/2013

A gun in the hand is far better than a cop on the phone.

59) Comment by shutupandthink - 30/01/2013

@swinham yes we may need military style weapons to protect us from our own government or an invading army or a rioting mob or a lunatic trying to do us harm. I also legally carry a loaded concealed Glock for the same reasons. I pray I never need to use them, but as the old adage goes I would rather have and not need than to need and not have! Now quite often there have been references to Hitler in the debate over gun rights. You ask "Are Hitler's beliefs 70 years ago relevant in America today?" hell yes they are how many dictatorship countries have fallen in that 70 years? They didn’t change because the people voted the dictator out they had to use military style weapons to win their freedom! Now let’s look at Venezuela, moving to socialist country in the last 10 years or so, because the people are now sheeple. Then you ask “What possible relevance can a statement made 36 years ago by the head of an organization that no longer even goes by that name (now the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) have today?” It shows their agenda has not wavered in the last 36 years! THEY WANT TO DISARM AMERICA!!! And yes because of the Bill of Rights we all get to rant TO and ABOUT or government even the gun grabbers. IF WE LOSE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND OUSELVES, OUR LOVED ONES AND OUR CONSTITUTION WE WILL ALSO LOSE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!

60) Comment by phil - 30/01/2013

The truth is I think we need arms more to protect us from our own government in case it ever goes astray, and not as much just to protect us (citizens) from each other. If it wasn't for that slim possibility, I might tend to lean more towards having more gun control.

61) Comment by swinham - 30/01/2013

Does retired professor Rachal have a point here? If so, it is hard to accept. Is he saying that we need military style weapons to protect us from our own government? If we are likely to need this protection we live in a much different country than I would ever dream possible. This is not revolutionary America and if it ever becomes so again, we are all gone pecans. Are Hitler's beliefs 70 years ago relevant in America today, or in the future? What possible relevance can a statement made 36 years ago by the head of an organization that no longer even goes by that name (now the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) have today. And, even if that is a goal of the Brady Campaign, so what? Do they have no 1st amendment rights or rights to petition our government and promote their beliefs with regard to gun control, or is that the sole province of the NRA?