Letters to the Editor

Key is that our right to bear arms is protected

I read with some amusement the letter from Duane Simurdak in the Jan. 23 Courier-Herald. The problem with liberal progressives is they often come to a fight unarmed with facts and when they do so they must go on the attack implying that their opponent(s) are illogical, childish and egotistical or a conspiracy theorist.

Bereft of facts they attempt to ridicule others into silence. What is said (or wrote) is often twisted to fit their world view of “if you would just give up your childish belief in that dusty ol’ document, the US Constitution…if you would just compromise… we could all get along.”

Mr. Simurdak points out that our Constitution begins with “We the People…” not “Me the Individual...” in true collectivist fashion, ignoring the fact that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights focusing on the rights of the individual.

The Second Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms, but rather affirmed that right. This is not a right granted by government but one that is tied in with those unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To attempt to equate this right to traffic laws and the “right” to own a car is ridiculous. You do not have a “right” to own a car or to drive in America. That is a privilege that is granted by the state which is the fundamental difference here.  The state can revoke that privilege to drive or even own that car but must stop at “…shall not be infringed.” Liberal progressives hate those four words.

Sen. Feinstein introduced her bill in the U.S. House calling for the ban of 150 specific firearms and a host of other restrictions, including a back door to a national gun registry. All which will have no effect whatsoever on the type of person who would shoot up an elementary school.

“Gun registration is directed to law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Not only do convicted criminals by definition fail to obey the law, but they are also constitutionally protected against any registration requirement. In Haynes v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s proscription against forced self-incrimination. In other words, the court said that if someone “realistically can expect that registration (of a firearm) will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution,” the registration requirement is unconstitutional” (Dr. Miguel Faria).

I, like many supporters of the Second Amendment, realize that having a M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank in my backyard or a case of Stinger Missiles in my basement is probably beyond the scope of the Second Amendment. I will give you that. But you must in turn realize that my right to “keep and bear arms” is not for the purpose of sport shooting, hunting or even home defense against criminals. The Founding Fathers knew that governments instituted among men could easily turn against its own citizens, they knew men are not infallible and are capable of doing horrendous things to one another.

Whether it takes me 10 bullets or 100 bullets to bag that buck is not relevant. What is relevant are my rights, what is relevant are your rights “…shall not be infringed”…and oh yeah, my mother was smarter than your mother. Peace.

Tim Personius

Buckley

 

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Oct 29 edition online now. Browse the archives.

Friends to Follow

View All Updates