Regarding the essay on the Second Amendment (Ideas, Feb. 13): John Ashcroft would have failed Miss Mildred Murrel's grammar course at Burlington High in the 1940s, as well as U.S. History 101 in any college or university. Miss Murrel taught that the construction of a sentence is meaningful; how the words are strung together conveys a message.
James Madison and others knew exactly what they were doing to make one part of a sentence depend on another part to flesh out their intention. If the Second Amendment were reduced to one idea per sentence, it would read: 1) These united States (united was not capitalized when the Constitution was written) have no standing army; 2) some of our citizens have guns; 3) they can be summoned to form a militia; 4) that militia must be well-regulated. Conclusion: Therefore, citizens lawfully owned guns.
But now, two centuries later, look at the construction of the amendment: We are United; we have a standing army plus the National Guard. We don't need a citizens' militia. The ownership of guns can be regulated. Ownership of assault weapons and such is not a constitutional right. What's not to understand?
Raymond A. "Pete" Petrea
Greensboro
Comments (6)
Apparently you're not reading the same Constitution the rest of us are.
Posted by Joe Doaks | February 20, 2005 1:22 PM
You shot yourself in the foot, Ray. The fact that we're United rather than united goes against what the Fathers envisioned, as does pretty much everything else the government currently does.
And you're right; owning assault weapons is not a constitutional right; it's a NATURAL right. If you wish to violate that, I dare you to try. Go around from house to house and demand that everyone give up their guns. See what happens.
Posted by Paul | February 21, 2005 12:42 AM
Do we have to continually assassinate people? While disagreeing with the viewpoint of another is fine and attacking the position, attacking the person is NOT necessary!
Mr. Petrea did not say to take away all firearms owned by the citizenery. He only mentioned assault weapons. How do people put firearms/gun control and assualt weapons together. I know of no situation where I would need an assault weapon. While I do have access to a firearm, this weapon has not been fired in nearly ten years! And then it was only done in target practice. And honestly, I do not know why I still possess this firearm.
And in complete honesty, Mr. Petrea made a good argument in his post. The responses thus far have not rebutted his post, rather they have attacked him for his viewpoint.
Posted by Darryl Waisner | February 21, 2005 2:16 PM
Pete, Mrs. Murell had it pretty much right. If you factor in that "Regulated", at the time, meant well equipped. Most citizens owned the most advanced weapons that were available. Just so happens that an assault rifle of those days was a single shot. You do seem to leave off the part about the Constitution being the law of the land and the 2nd Amendment has not been repealed, yet.
Darryl, One of the great things about our country is choice. You make your choice but don't you dare make mine. You sort out if or why you own a firearm. I'll sort out if and why I own a firearm. Let's leave it there.
Posted by Mac | February 21, 2005 4:41 PM
Darryl, I have heard that "regulated" had a different meaning in 1791, which was "well-prepared" or "well-equipped," as Mac said. I did not include that in this post because I have no hard evidence of that. I will try to find an old dictionary somewhere, however, and verify that. If that is true, it shoots your argument all to pieces.
Furthermore, even if the Second Amendment does mean that a militia must be regulated in the way we perceive the term today, that still does not give Congress power to ban assault rifles. The powers delegated to Congress are found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Read that section and tell me where it says that Congress may ban guns. I think you'll be surprised, however, to find that Congress in certain cases shall actually GIVE guns to the people.
Also, you mention that no one needs an assault rifle. Ok. You don't need a TV. You don't need a lot of things. How does that give you a right to take certain things you happen not to like from people? It doesn't matter why I may happen to want an assault rifle. As long as I don't hurt anyone with it, it's none of your business if I have one.
Posted by Paul | February 21, 2005 5:37 PM
The "assault rifle" crap has been going around a long time. An assault rifle has the dreaded bayonet lug, to which one may affix, if he can find one, a gen-u-wine bayonet so as to stab little children in school yards and such. Wait..when was the last time you heard of this happening?
A rifle is a rifle is a rifle. A bullet has no idea from which color or configuration rifle it's being fired. Or whether the rifle costs $500 or $5000, or whether it has a bayonet lug or not.
If I fire my granddad's old double-barrel shotgun with 00 buckshot in each barrel, both at the same time, I can put 18 pellets downrange in the blink of an eye. That's 17 more projectiles than any assault rifle can fire in one pull of the trigger. So why isn't granddad's old shotgun 17 times more dangerous than a dreaded "assault rifle?"
Much the same argument can be made that any vehicle which is capable of exceeding the speed limit should be labeled an "Assault Car" and outlawed, because nobody needs to exceed the speed limit, right?
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to empower the citizens to resist a tyrannical governement and preserve the other rights guaranteed to citizens. It has nothing to do with self-defense, hunting, or protecting the US from foreign attack. Without the Second Amendment, we could not protect the other ones.
Posted by Joe Doaks | February 21, 2005 5:55 PM