Ol'Coach Posted November 25, 2009 at 06:32 PM Posted November 25, 2009 at 06:32 PM Link to the letter. While there is much with which to "debate" in the letter, I find this really objectionable: We must remember, when choosing how to interpret the Second Amendment, that there were no semi- and fully automatic guns in 1787. Additionally, only 4 million people lived within America's borders. Even the most conservative individual would have to admit that the change in demographic, economic and technological variables demands that we linguistically stretch and bend the meaning of the Second Amendment. ..."bend and stretch" the 2nd Amendment? One can only "bend and stretch" so far until that which is bent or stretched, breaks! How about the other 26? All bendable and stretchable? Rather than "...bend and stretch..." provisions were made by the founding fathers for amending the Constitution. It's been done 17 times thus far! But, I suppose, that's too much of a hassle for some people who deem nothing wrong with bending and stretching the greatest document ever written for governing a group of individuals living in varying constituencies. Maybe there has been/is too much "bending and stretching" occurring already? "These are the times that try men's souls." Never more true than now! I'm workin' on a reply, but don't know that I can limit it to 250 words. FF, GF, SM, wanna give it a shot? (pun)
Ol'Coach Posted November 25, 2009 at 07:14 PM Author Posted November 25, 2009 at 07:14 PM Should this be in "The Back Room"?
Ashes Posted November 25, 2009 at 08:23 PM Posted November 25, 2009 at 08:23 PM I see nothing to bend and stretch. American Citizens have the right to own, maintain and use guns. Any means of annulling this right is denied to all United States governments. Too many people want to pass laws to affect other peoples' actions and never their own. I'd like to see those anti-gun backers who believe that guns are a danger write a law that says, "I (insert antigun backer's name here), henceforth give up my right to bear arms. If I do ever decide that I need a gun, please deny me by any means neccessary." It'll pass Constitutional muster too, without having to "stretch" anything.
SirMatthew Posted November 25, 2009 at 08:32 PM Posted November 25, 2009 at 08:32 PM This is the line that bothered me most: "It is intellectually impossible to claim that the Founders would countenance the widespread ownership of guns that exists today for one obvious reason: it sends us back to a ruthless man-against-man, Hobbesian state of nature." We already know the firearm is the "great equalizer". It's what gives the weak and mild equal standing with the mighty and strong. It keeps everything balanced so there is peace among us. Sure, there is violence committed, but think of what the violence might be like without firearms. Without firearms (and other effective forms of self-defense), the world would be ruled by those were were proven to be the strongest. Imagine a world of Arnold Schwarzeneggers much like you saw in the movie, "Conan the Barbarian". Every weaker man in a society could do nothing but subject to their powerful warlord while women would be little more than property to be fought over and won. This social hierarchy is no better than that practiced by gorillas, lions, and other wild animals. We've evolved beyond this as a society, in part, thanks to the the firearm. Perhaps a day will come with firearms are little more than a curious relic of violent ages gone by. Even so, those who use firearms offensively need to lay down their weapons first. No law can make them do that, so there will always be a need for defensive firearms. Quite simply, those holding firearms as a means of defense will not give up their arms under any circumstances...ever. To demand they do so would lead to the very violence gun-control intends to prevent.
anonymous too Posted November 25, 2009 at 09:10 PM Posted November 25, 2009 at 09:10 PM Just another bed wetting egghead that has no ability to be self-reliant. Because they are inept, anyone who can take care of themselves without government's assistance is just a reminder of their shortcomings.
Xwing Posted November 25, 2009 at 10:04 PM Posted November 25, 2009 at 10:04 PM Whoever wrote that article is a clueless idiot. The constitution is the Constitution. If you want to bend or stretch it, that's what amendments are for, not what activist judges are for!
Buzzard Posted November 25, 2009 at 11:01 PM Posted November 25, 2009 at 11:01 PM Should this be in "The Back Room"? No, It should be right here. And I don't feel that subjects that aren't strictly related to firearms should be relegated to the Back Room. It's becoming increasingly clear that "political correctness" is taking this country right down into the liberal-infested sewer. And if we are afraid to post articles and discuss National Politics outside of the Back Room, well then, what kind of Americans are we?
templar223 Posted November 26, 2009 at 12:20 AM Posted November 26, 2009 at 12:20 AM I read that letter today. The classic "founding fathers couldn't have imagined machine guns" bravo sierra. And the classic rebuttals are, "They couldn't imagine the internet either. Should the freedom of speech be repealed for that?" "They couldn't imagine high speed presses either. Should the freedom of press be repealed for modern newspapers?" "They couldn't imagine a nation of 300M people. Should freedom to peaceably assemble be repealed?" I could go on, but arguing with stupid bigots isn't worth my time. J
GarandFan Posted November 26, 2009 at 12:28 AM Posted November 26, 2009 at 12:28 AM Bend and stretch? That numbnuts obviously doesn't know about Article V. Remember folks ... even the stupidest people on earth can get their views published sometimes.
Ol'Coach Posted November 26, 2009 at 02:35 AM Author Posted November 26, 2009 at 02:35 AM Is this worth ending to the N-G: In my opinion, the writer of the letter titled, “Gun control a must in today's society,” dated 11/25/2009,should do some research regarding the Constitution of the United States of America. The writer seems to be suggesting that laws should be written, despite the 2nd Amendment, that would state that I should give up my unalienable right to own a firearm to defend my family, self, country from those that would have total disregard for any such law. There can be no “…bending and stretching” of any part of the Constitution! Article V of the Constitution ahould be read to learn how a means is provided to amend the greatest system for governing ever written in the history of mankind.Unalienable rights don’t change, regardless of population, regardless of advances in technology! Feel free to comment. Maybe some of you can edit to make it better, or write a whole new letter. (I'm tryng to avoid pointing out, line for line, all the discrepancies. I don't want that letter to go unanswered! Gotta be 250 words or less.
Lou Posted November 26, 2009 at 02:46 AM Posted November 26, 2009 at 02:46 AM We must remember, when choosing how to interpret the Second Amendment, that there were no semi- and fully automatic guns in 1787. Additionally, only 4 million people lived within America's borders. Even the most conservative individual would have to admit that the change in demographic, economic and technological variables demands that we linguistically stretch and bend the meaning of the Second Amendment. There was no TV, radio or internet in 1787 so by his logic the First Amendment does not apply to electronic media? Pretty silly actually. Does the "change in demographics" also allow us to bend and stretch any other Amendment that we might not agree with?
ilphil Posted November 26, 2009 at 02:59 AM Posted November 26, 2009 at 02:59 AM Link to the letter. While there is much with which to "debate" in the letter, I find this really objectionable: We must remember, when choosing how to interpret the Second Amendment, that there were no semi- and fully automatic guns in 1787. Additionally, only 4 million people lived within America's borders. Even the most conservative individual would have to admit that the change in demographic, economic and technological variables demands that we linguistically stretch and bend the meaning of the Second Amendment. ..."bend and stretch" the 2nd Amendment? One can only "bend and stretch" so far until that which is bent or stretched, breaks! How about the other 26? All bendable and stretchable? Rather than "...bend and stretch..." provisions were made by the founding fathers for amending the Constitution. It's been done 17 times thus far! But, I suppose, that's too much of a hassle for some people who deem nothing wrong with bending and stretching the greatest document ever written for governing a group of individuals living in varying constituencies. Maybe there has been/is too much "bending and stretching" occurring already? "These are the times that try men's souls." Never more true than now! I'm workin' on a reply, but don't know that I can limit it to 250 words. FF, GF, SM, wanna give it a shot? (pun) Well, I'm about as conservative as you can get and I fail to see how changing demographics or any other reasoning that springs from the musings of a liberal that feels he has superior insight into the intent of the Founding Fathers is enough to override the mechanisms that have been in place for changing the constitution. It seems to me that if the intent was for activist judges to substitute their opinions for the will of the people the constitution would say so and it wouldn't have set up such a detailed and cumbersome amendment process. It never ceases to amaze me how the left can think it is perfectly acceptable to create a "right" out of thin air (abortion as an example) but then go off using tortured logic to try to deny a right (to keep and bear arms) that is clearly and plainly expressed.It must really suck to be them and not be able to argue using FACTS and what is written in black & white right in front of them.
Ol'Coach Posted November 26, 2009 at 03:24 AM Author Posted November 26, 2009 at 03:24 AM Admittedly, this jerk's letter has pi$$ed me more than any LTE I have ever read! Absolutely f'n rediculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i sent my reply. Hope some of you do the same! Go HERE to do so. Flood 'em, folks!...in 250 words or less.
SirMatthew Posted November 26, 2009 at 04:07 AM Posted November 26, 2009 at 04:07 AM Admittedly, this jerk's letter has pi$$ed me more than any LTE I have ever read! Absolutely f'n rediculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i sent my reply. Hope some of you do the same! Go HERE to do so. Flood 'em, folks!...in 250 words or less. Done. Thanks Coach.
Ol'Coach Posted November 26, 2009 at 05:34 AM Author Posted November 26, 2009 at 05:34 AM This brings to mind a question...am I a "conservative" because I support the Constitution of the United States?
Bill Matio Posted November 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM Posted November 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM Coach, as much as your highlighted lines aggravate me, the first line in the second paragraph of this "editorial" really ticked me off Our fetish with guns bears more resemblance to a Third World country than it does an industrialized nation. That statement doesn't even make sense, and coming from an editorial board?
GarandFan Posted November 26, 2009 at 12:53 PM Posted November 26, 2009 at 12:53 PM I am starting ... trying ... to learn the psychology of editorials and such letters. Obviously, if someone writes an anti-gun letter, they are somehow frustrated with something. Of course, our reactions can be 1) none, 2) unemotional response to correct, and 3) frustration. As frustrating as reading those letters are ... don't let them bother you. THe best approach is to write a reasoned response. I think that we have enought things in this world to frustrate us, without letting ignorant blowhards frustrate us further. Most of this is a mind game. Play to win.
TTIN Posted November 26, 2009 at 03:46 PM Posted November 26, 2009 at 03:46 PM Is this JOSH SEITER moron a staff writer,or just someone who wrote a LTE?
glide Posted November 26, 2009 at 04:17 PM Posted November 26, 2009 at 04:17 PM How do you get to the comments section? All I get is the letter but no comments.
Kaeghl Posted November 26, 2009 at 06:21 PM Posted November 26, 2009 at 06:21 PM This brings to mind a question...am I a "conservative" because I support the Constitution of the United States? A conservative? Not really. Many Liberals can support the Constitution to a great extent. There is always that itty-bitty grey areas that make for wonderfull conversation/arguements. But those itty bitty areas should never grow to the extent of NOT supporting the Constitution. Therein lies danger. Supporting the Constitution simply makes you what we call an AMERICAN. Not supporting the Constitution obviously makes you UN-American. That is the danger.
GarandFan Posted November 26, 2009 at 08:03 PM Posted November 26, 2009 at 08:03 PM This brings to mind a question...am I a "conservative" because I support the Constitution of the United States? Not hardly, IMO.
Ol'Coach Posted November 26, 2009 at 08:53 PM Author Posted November 26, 2009 at 08:53 PM Is this JOSH SEITER moron a staff writer,or just someone who wrote a LTE? A letter writer, not a staff member. By the way, some time ago, I presented the news staff at the C/U N-G with a bound copy of Gun Facts 4.something (prior to 5.0). Asked them to use it before making uneducated statements.
billzfx4 Posted November 27, 2009 at 07:59 PM Posted November 27, 2009 at 07:59 PM I'm workin' on a reply, but don't know that I can limit it to 250 words. I have my reply narrowed down to 2 very choice words!
Ashdump Posted November 30, 2009 at 05:00 PM Posted November 30, 2009 at 05:00 PM Rebuttal today! We can't stretch, bend words' meaningMonday November 30, 2009 Josh Seiter's Nov. 25 letter on gun control is logically flawed and insulting. He likens gun owners to third-world fetishists and claims widespread gun ownership sends us back to a ruthless existence. He fails to distinguish between lawful gun owners and the "culture of violence" perpetrated by felons and thugs who possess guns illegally. And he appears to blame conservatives for that culture. But perhaps his most outrageous statement is that we must "linguistically stretch and bend the meaning of the Second Amendment" to fit his flawed logic. The Second Amendment's meaning stands on its own without Seiter's help; the words were chosen by men who placed a greater stock in their precise meaning than we do today. A militia comprised of gun-owning civilians is perhaps the strongest deterrent ever to the rise of oppressive regimes. On the other hand, letting a government be the sole determinant of gun ownership is a concept proven time and again to kill millions. We've had 250 years of private gun ownership in this country, and 100 of those are with semi-automatic weapons. Yet we've managed to build a pretty decent society. Our Founders understood what many of us today do not; that there are certain principles that are self evident regardless of the scope or size of society. As a lawful gun owner, I am proud to be counted among those whose mere existence helps to ensure Seiter will remain free to voice his flawed opinions. KEN FOLEY Saint Joseph
templar223 Posted December 1, 2009 at 04:55 AM Posted December 1, 2009 at 04:55 AM Rebuttal today! We can't stretch, bend words' meaningMonday November 30, 2009 Josh Seiter's Nov. 25 letter on gun control is logically flawed and insulting. He likens gun owners to third-world fetishists and claims widespread gun ownership sends us back to a ruthless existence. He fails to distinguish between lawful gun owners and the "culture of violence" perpetrated by felons and thugs who possess guns illegally. And he appears to blame conservatives for that culture. But perhaps his most outrageous statement is that we must "linguistically stretch and bend the meaning of the Second Amendment" to fit his flawed logic. The Second Amendment's meaning stands on its own without Seiter's help; the words were chosen by men who placed a greater stock in their precise meaning than we do today. A militia comprised of gun-owning civilians is perhaps the strongest deterrent ever to the rise of oppressive regimes. On the other hand, letting a government be the sole determinant of gun ownership is a concept proven time and again to kill millions. We've had 250 years of private gun ownership in this country, and 100 of those are with semi-automatic weapons. Yet we've managed to build a pretty decent society. Our Founders understood what many of us today do not; that there are certain principles that are self evident regardless of the scope or size of society. As a lawful gun owner, I am proud to be counted among those whose mere existence helps to ensure Seiter will remain free to voice his flawed opinions. KEN FOLEY Saint Joseph Someone cue Borat, please. Niiiicccceeeeeee. John
Ashdump Posted December 1, 2009 at 05:11 PM Posted December 1, 2009 at 05:11 PM .....and from one of our own!!!! Let's not mess with ConstitutionTuesday December 1, 2009 In my opinion, the writer of the recent letter titled, "Gun control a must in today's society," should do some research regarding the U.S. Constitution. The writer seems to be suggesting that laws should be written, despite the Second Amendment, that would state that I should give up my unalienable right to own a firearm to defend my family, myself and country from those that would have total disregard for any such law. There can be no bending and stretching of any part of the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution provides a means to amend the greatest system for governing ever written in the history of mankind. Unalienable rights don't change, regardless of population, regardless of advances in technology. We've had enough bending and stretching of the Constitution. Bend enough, stretch enough, and it'll break. GENE MARTIN Champaign
lockman Posted December 1, 2009 at 05:34 PM Posted December 1, 2009 at 05:34 PM Sweet & simple! for Coach!
GarandFan Posted December 1, 2009 at 08:48 PM Posted December 1, 2009 at 08:48 PM Both of those letters are just excellent! And special kudos to Gene Martin for bringing up Article V. That is really the crux of this entire matter. We don't bend and stretch the constitution ... doing so would rend it meaningless, constantly open to differing opinions over time. That's precisely the reasons for Article V inclusion. Nice job!
Federal Farmer Posted December 1, 2009 at 09:16 PM Posted December 1, 2009 at 09:16 PM Both of those letters are just excellent! And special kudos to Gene Martin for bringing up Article V. That is really the crux of this entire matter. We don't bend and stretch the constitution ... doing so would rend it meaningless, constantly open to differing opinions over time. That's precisely the reasons for Article V inclusion. Nice job! I need a Gumby Constitution image.
GarandFan Posted December 1, 2009 at 09:38 PM Posted December 1, 2009 at 09:38 PM I need a Gumby Constitution image. Or "Stretch Armstrong's Constitution" image. Sorry, but I am fresh out of those images.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.