Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

An Idjit Responds.


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

To my letter in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat recently, they printed this response:

 

Gun rights

EDITOR: Joe Lovell (“Left and rights,” Letters, June 29) asked, “Why are the liberals working hard to eliminate two key rights that are protected by the Second Amendment?” He cherry-picked a self-serving passage from that amendment and cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision to decry “the California Legislature . . . stripping rights away from honest citizens.”

The Second Amendment begins: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .” In their Heller decision, Justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas stated: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”

This means that Lovell will have to make do with both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI being constrained from maintaining a permanent database of gun sales, gun manufacturers enjoying almost total immunity from lawsuits resulting from the reckless use of their lethal products, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention being forbidden to study gun deaths as a health issue and firearms being permitted aboard Amtrak trains and in our national parks.

I guess some rights are “righter” than others, eh?

HARRY V. CORTEZ

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130708/OPINION/130709625/1044/opinion02?p=2&tc=pg

Please, have at this guy. Thanks.

I'll be composing my reply later this evening.

Link to comment

The etimology of words in the case of the 2nd is quite illuminationg. The 1700s meaning of:"regulated" is "well equipped". It had absolutely nothing to do with laws!

 

:-)

Link to comment

Reference? This is the first I'd heard of that, and it would help to be able to cite something solid.

Link to comment

To my letter in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat recently, they printed this response:

 

Gun rights

EDITOR: Joe Lovell (“Left and rights,” Letters, June 29) asked, “Why are the liberals working hard to eliminate two key rights that are protected by the Second Amendment?” He cherry-picked a self-serving passage from that amendment and cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision to decry “the California Legislature . . . stripping rights away from honest citizens.”

The Second Amendment begins: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .” In their Heller decision, Justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas stated: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”

This means that Lovell will have to make do with both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI being constrained from maintaining a permanent database of gun sales, gun manufacturers enjoying almost total immunity from lawsuits resulting from the reckless use of their lethal products, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention being forbidden to study gun deaths as a health issue and firearms being permitted aboard Amtrak trains and in our national parks.

I guess some rights are “righter” than others, eh?

HARRY V. CORTEZ

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130708/OPINION/130709625/1044/opinion02?p=2&tc=pg

Please, have at this guy. Thanks.

 

I'll be composing my reply later this evening.

 

 

So, Harry, "...the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI being constrained from maintaining a permanent database of gun sales, gun manufacturers enjoying almost total immunity from lawsuits resulting from the reckless use of their lethal products, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention being forbidden to study gun deaths as a health issue and firearms being permitted aboard Amtrak trains and in our national parks." is a only good start and in concert with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

In 1789, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term "well-regulated" meant that something was in proper working order. It had nothing to do with laws or regulations as we know of them today.

 

From the sources I rely on.

 

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Joe, welcome to the club!

 

I don't even count the number of "disagreements" I receive from leftists. After many years of writing political commentary, I've firmly concluded that the ONLY time one should be concerned is when what you've written is "agreeable" to the anti-gun element.

 

You did well Joe and such an answer should not be unexpected or given any more thought.

 

Salute!

Link to comment

Joe, welcome to the club!

 

I don't even count the number of "disagreements" I receive from leftists. After many years of writing political commentary, I've firmly concluded that the ONLY time one should be concerned is when what you've written is "agreeable" to the anti-gun element.

 

You did well Joe and such an answer should not be unexpected or given any more thought.

 

Salute!

 

Oh, I've been doing it for decades, Col. Dan. The response was pretty much what I expected to see here in Sonoma Co. CA

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.