Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
The Internet 200 years ago.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What our forefathers meant
I think people should be able to own all the muzzle-loading rifles and cap and ball pistols they want.
Does anyone truly believe the founding fathers were so prescient that they envisioned automatic weapons, bunker busting bombs and nuclear weapons?
-----------------------------------
Did the founding fathers forsee Television, Radio, or the Internet? Afterall, the 1st amendment says freedom of the Press, it's by practice that this is extended to non printed matter.
In fact, in arguing for freedom of the press much was made of the time to reflect on what would be printed and this would help control libelous statements.
That obviously doesn't apply in this day an age of almost instant communication.
When the Bill of Rights was adopted, people kept firearms of the same or better design than the small standing Army we possesed, and the change in firearm technology is not as great and the change in communications technology.
-
Climbing is dangerous
[Read the article: My boyfriend's climbing partner let him fall]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's hard to tell by the orignal writer what exactly happened. Did the boyfriend fall or what was meant by coming down too fast?
The responsiblity with climbing goes to the climber. You want a responsible belayer as well. From the sound of it the boyfriend was both self belaying and had "Joe" as a belayer. How the self belayer device failed isn't mentioned.
Did Joe allow too much slack in the rope? If so, your boyfriend should have noticed this and said something, and how could your boyfriend come down faster than expected without excess slack? If the fall was the result of your boyfriend not setting a chock correctly, then it's his fault and not the friends.
You were there, was proper form being used, did your boyfriend yell "falling" was he calling for On Belay and Off Belay, or was this a more experience climber, your boyfriend showing off to a less experience climber and falling?
Perhaps the "Joe" person could be more understanding, but that assumes he actually did something wrong that contributed to the fall, and you haven't actually shown that yet.
When you climb, you take responsibity for yourself and your safety.
-
One Handgun a month Bull shit
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]furious hopping mad at the inconvenience of only being able to buy one handgun a month.
-----------------------
Yes, that makes me furious as well. Why, because whether I buy 1 or 15 a month doesn't matter. How exactly is it any safer to have 5 handguns as compared to 50? It isn't.
For collectors, quite often certain models only come up for sale occasionally, and all the one gun a month laws do is hurt collectors, not criminals.
Firearm collections are like other collections in that what drives value is rarity, and this is often small differences in where or when a firearm is produced. A Finnish M39 and a Soviet M44 are basically the same firearm, the use the same mechanism, the use the same round, yet the former runs around $500 while the later can be found for $70.
If there is an issue with someone buying more than one handgun a month and reselling it without a license (there's already a limit on that) then address that issue, but stop trying to defend laws that only hurt people who have caused no harm.
-
Please stop misquoting.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A "well-regulated militia" is not any old militia. It is not any random gathering of armed citizens. It is a well-trained and disciplined militia with a command hierarchy. Who says so? Alexander Hamilton said so in Federalist Paper No. 29:
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Clearly it was considered that such a well regulated militia would only be possible with the backing of the state.
verelse
-----------------------------------------
No, Hamiliton is arguing that we can NEVER have a standing well regulated militia because the burden of doing so is too great. This does not mean individuals cannot and should not be armed. If you had kept reading, or hadn't deliberately chosen to admit, the passage continues as;
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year"
That's the purpose of the Second Amendment to assure that the people at large are properly armed, and that if needed can then be consituted as a well regulated militia if required.
==============================
"The 2nd Amendment guaranteed that the federal government could not prevent the states from possessing the arms necessary to arm their own well regulated state militias, but the states could ban any weapon they wanted to."
Sorry, that directly violates the concept of the US Constitution. Perhaps you've never read Article I section 10.
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace"
States cannot keep troops without the Consent of Congress. Congress can ban the National Guard at any moment, what Congress and the States cannot do is ban the Militia, which is all abled bodied males.