Cloudy
68°
Cloudy
Hi 76° | Lo 52°

Letter: Rewrite the 2nd Amendment

We are constantly reading of incidents of murder and injury via guns. What is disgusting is the constant reference to our constitutional right to own firearms. When the Second Amendment was written, this country was literally a jungle from just inside the Atlantic states to the Pacific Ocean, with savage beasts and humans the people had to deal with.

It is time we changed that amendment to limit firearms to the military and peace officers, with exceptions permitted with proper application and proof.

Japan, where guns are prohibited, had 97 gun incidents in one year. We had 126,000 murders that same year – if that doesn’t tell us something.

So let us demand that the Second Amendment be changed to correct this terrible situation ASAP!

BERNARD H. ASH

Concord

I see that you haven't spent much time in Japan. In Japan if you have been found guilty of a violent crime you have 3 days for an appeal. If your appeal fails, you then can make a public apology to the victims by re-enacting the crime in front of the public at the crime scene. Several days later the criminal is executed. Beheading a few years back. What I watch was three 21 year-olds suffer the sharp edge of a sword for their crime after their public apology. So when this country has a zero tolerance for crime to (include corrupt politicians / crony capitalist .. Harry Reid, Chinese, Green Energy, BLM, Federal land scandal just this week) and is welling to executed violent crimes (public official corruption in Asia is a violent crime) ... leave the 2nd Amendment alone.

Evidently, you watch too many movies.

First of all, I'm a gun toting liberal. It's funny you should mention Japan, a place I know a bit about. There's only two kinds of gun owners in that country; the police and the Japanese mafia. Do you really want to live in a country like that?

First of all, I'm a gun toting liberal. It's funny you should mention Japan, a place I know a bit about. There's only two kinds of gun owners in that country; the police and the Japanese mafia. Do you really want to live in a country like that?

The Yakuza is more than a "mafia" and the police have very little control over them.

Our forefather wrote into the constitution a means to alter it. Knowing full well that it was a living document that would need to change with the needs of the people. Hence we have amendments and a process to make new ones and revoke old ones. When it comes to the second amendment that process needs to be followed. Either Congress will pass and amendment to modify the second amendment and let the people(states) ratify it or they won't. Or the sates will through the process of a constitutional convention will do the same. Either way if an amendment is proposed the states still have to approve it. If they do then it becomes the law of the land and we will all have to accept it if we truly believe that the constitution is our governing document. othewise we might just as well throw it all out and have every man for himself. otherwise known as anarchy.

The states will not approve a change to the Constitution, especially not that amendment.

While trying to come up with a snappy reply to Itsa I stumbled across an article on the Second Amendment and it's interpretation through our history. (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/36halc.pdf) It is neither a left or right wing document simply court findings on the 2nd Amendment. It's long but was surprising reading. If you think gun laws are restrictive now, you'll be surprised by the 1930's. Rather unusual reading since it is a truly unbiased piece. Yes, Itsa, they do exist. Maybe you can work it into your stand-up routine that you share with us daily.

The 1930's were the Al Capone, gangster years with machine gun killing in the streets, very different than now. They also prohibited alcohol as well and how did that work out? The answer is obvious, those who wanted alcohol got it and those who want guns to kill people, if they are outlawed got them as well.

Yep very different from now, drive by gang shootings, mass murder by children committed in our public schools, bank robberies with high powered assault rifles, the list goes on and on.

Unfortunately for those of us who favor sensible restrictions on guns in this country, the Supreme Court has already rewritten the 2nd Amendment. Its Heller decision overturned decades of precedent, not to mention the original application and understanding of the amendment.

poppycock and hogwash.

Baloney, your wishful interpretation, not the "original application and understanding" of the amendment.

And isn't that why we have a Supreme Court? What, after all, do such as Constitutional Amendments actually do and say, who can under the law actually say, and how soon can you contact them directly and set them straight?

1) In the 32 years from 1980 - 2012, there have been some 513 people killed in 62 incidents of mass shootings under the Mother Jones definition (perpetrators generally included). This amounts to an average of 16 per year. Over the 12 years for which the CDC has available data, the average death rate due to lightning strikes has been 45 per year. 2) Chicago: 446 school age children shot in 2013 with strongest gun laws in country – media silent 3) Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

For a different take on the topic we should look a few short years ago for an objective viewpoint. --------- "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.'' ---Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989. ---------- Then we have this ---- Ronald Reagan wrote to Congress in 1994 " urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons." ------So honestly who was tougher on gun control, Obama or Reagan??

The second amendment is fine as it is and for what it stands for. Many people with zero knowledge of true history don't understand the context of history when it comes to our founding fathers and average citizen. Democracy was a new idea at the time and there were real concerns on it even working. Now we live in a society and world that would seem very foreign to people of 1778. This is where interpretation of ideas comes in. Washington, Jefferson and many others of the time were afraid of monarchies and built safeguards in. Today only the crazy paranoid lunatics have reason to believe we need to be armed to stand up to repression. Yes, I mean you as you prepare to rant.

LOL, as opposed to not stading up against repression or tyrannical politicians running ramshot iver the Constitution.

Tyrannical politicians, give it a rest. Just because you don't like something a politician does equate to tyranny. It's difficult to fall under the heading of a tyrannical despot when you are legally elected and lack absolute power. Just because Mommy doesn't let you play video games doesn't make her a tyrant.

When you are legally elected and you do not follow the Constitution or trample on it by not enforcing some laws and enforcing others and make constant threats that if Congress will not pass something, YOU will take matters into your own hands....elected or not, you are bordering on being a tyrant. If given the chance, Obama would love to rule by fiat.

I have a different take....I watched the LA riots...and heard the stories from the citizens who had to protect their property and livelihoods by themselves...as there were no police or govt official to protect them. Maybe someone in their family or a newspaper reader thought they were crazy paranoid lunatics ...

The weaker our 2nd Amendment becomes the harder it becomes to defend the 1st. Laws that forbid or limit fire arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." How else can you explain why mass shootings always happen in gun free zones? The more we restrict the good guys right to keep and bear arms the more power we hand over to the bad guys who never intend to lay down their arms regardless of the law. Jeremy

It will sound radical to Leftists, but keeping and bearing arms forewarns government to not overstep its bounds. If push comes to shove that would be a deterrent. Of course our present administration is pushing the boundaries as they stomp all over the Constitution. In fact, if progressives had their way they would throw it out and re-write it to their own taste. That is their real objective. It is a document which stands the test of time and the Second Amendment is quite clear.

Bernard has a point. Amend the constitution Bernard. Takes act of congress or the States to call a Convention for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Amending the Constitution is difficult for a reason. Using the Supreme Court is a much easier way to get around this cumbersome amending process outlined in our Constitution. Much easier for a political hack to get a group of political hacks known as judges to just deem it so!

Correct FreezeFrame, that is their remedy but if they can't get it that way they will try end runs and the courts to get what they want. And that is the problem with progressives. Just look at Obamacare, wildly unpopular, few people want it except a select group on the Left and they refuse to say "uncle"...they only care about their end, to Hell with the means.

I wouldn't mind seeing assault weapons go away, at least with regard to private ownership. Who really needs to own an AK-47, AR-15, etc? Answer seems to be the same guys who raise pit bulls, drive a jacked up monsta' 4x4, are in the process of getting tattooed head-to-toe, and own the largest "Jerry Springer Show" VHS tape collection this side of the Mississippi. Somehow, the assault rifle completes the look.

WOW, what a stretch. Have you been to big cities and seen all of the young people "tatooed head-to-toe". Try Trader Joes or Starbucks, places like that.....Ink City. The only "jacked up monsta' 4X4" truck I have seen around NH are teenagers or young folks in their early 20's with nothing better to do. Jerry Springer? I see lots of women bobbing their heads up and down telling others off, but little else on Jerry Springer. Of course that might be "racist" to say in your world but it is the truth. Assault rifles are used for sport, shooting, etc. Have you ever shot an assault rifle? No, I did not think so. Perhaps a Nerf gun would be more like it. I guess we should outlaw those as they suggest that shooting a gun might be fun.

Somehow, you have no idea about the sort of people who own AR-15s Larry.

It does not need to be re-written, just appropriately applied. The Amendment addresses the need for a "well-regulated militia", as there was no standing army at the time, and no police constabulary outside the major cities. Weapons were necessary in that context. Things have changed, and there is neither need for militia, nor any move toward at regulation. Let's all give a tip of the hat to our cowardly corporate Republican shill Supreme Court.

LOL, you mean that Supreme Court that allowed Obamacare to take a foothold and ruin our health care for the majority of Americans.

This has NOTHING to do with health care.

He was suggesting that the court was a Republican Shill court but that must be untrue as they OK'd Obamacare.

You really have to get your facts straight. our court is about as evenly balanced as you can get. Because you don't like something and you absorb the millions and millions of $$$ of negative ads that reinforce your views, does not make them true. The Supreme Court ruled on a point of law concerning Obamacare. They didn't approve or disapprove of Obamacare as a whole, just one point of law. Have you had to sign up for Obamacare or are you only parroting what the naysayers are selling.

As I said, the court rubber stamped Obamacare. It is now being suggested that they had dirt on Roberts and he swayed the outcome. Maybe true, maybe not. No court should be "balanced" they should be blind and follow the Constitution. I looked into how much it would cost should my employer drop their insurance. Not pretty. I have relatives and colleagues who have signed up for Obamacare. In some instances they pay 3 times as much as others that they subsidize.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.