Baltimore Scum Letters to Editor on 2A

baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.28nnov28,0,6451528.story

Letters to the Editor

November 28, 2007

Article tools

* EmailE-mail
* Share
o Digg
o Del.icio.us
o Facebook
o Fark
o Google
o Newsvine
o Reddit
o Yahoo
* Print Print
* Single page viewSingle page view
* ReprintReprints
* Post Comment
* Text size:increase text sizedecrease text size

Click here to find out more!

An individual right to keep, bear arms
It appears that some law professors are even more adept at twisting the Constitution than the pro-gun scholars Kenneth Lasson takes to task ("Pro-gun scholars twist Constitution," Opinion • Commentary, Nov. 21).

The key phrase of the Second Amendment concerns "the right of the people" to bear arms.

By concluding that "of the people" refers to a collective right, Mr. Lasson undercuts other constitutional rights reserved to the individual.

Should our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights, and the right to elect representatives and senators (each of which are granted specifically to "the people"), also be construed as collective rather than individual rights?

Mr. Lasson also blatantly disregards the clear intentions of those who debated, wrote and enacted the Second Amendment. For instance:

• Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

• Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

• Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

We can debate whether the right to bear arms has outlived its usefulness.

But until that debate happens and the Second Amendment is repealed, it is the law of the land.

Scott Medvetz
Sparks

Gun rights critic also has ties to funders
I am rather disappointed by the manner in which The Sun presented Kenneth Lasson's anti-gun column "Pro-gun scholars twist Constitution" (Opinion • Commentary, Nov. 21).

While Mr. Lasson is entitled to his views on gun policy, he is not entitled to hide or ignore certain facts.

While Mr. Lasson attacked the National Rifle Association for funding scholarship in the area of guns, Mr. Lasson failed to mention his own similar scholarly connections to certain pro-gun-control groups.

Mr. Lasson is listed as an expert by an organization called the Second Amendment Research Center, which is funded by the Joyce Foundation.

The Joyce Foundation is notorious for funding controversial scholarship by prominent anti-gun groups, such as Handgun-Free America and the Violence Policy Center.

Again, Mr. Lasson is entitled to his opinion; however, it is intellectually dishonest for him to hide his biased affiliations in the process.

Brian Griffiths
Pasadena

No intent to protect modern weaponry
I read with pleasure the column "Pro-gun scholars twist Constitution" (Opinion • Commentary, Nov. 21) by Kenneth Lasson and the companion piece "High court should unholster the 2nd Amendment" (Opinion • Commentary, Nov. 21). I believe that we must have restrictions on the possession of guns.

The framers of the Constitution did not dream that the Second Amendment would be applied to devices such as AK-47s or concealable handguns.

I have long noted that the pro-gun-rights arguments rely on the "original intent" of the framers. I believe that what the framers had in mind was that every able-bodied man should have a musket, a powder horn and a bag of bullets hanging over his mantle.

Those citizens might also have been expected to drill on the village green once a month.

The intent was to allow for a citizen militia to protect villages (and the several states).

David Fischel
Columbia

Click to expand...

No intent to protect modern weaponry
I read with pleasure the column "Pro-gun scholars twist Constitution" (Opinion • Commentary, Nov. 21) by Kenneth Lasson and the companion piece "High court should unholster the 2nd Amendment" (Opinion • Commentary, Nov. 21). I believe that we must have restrictions on the possession of guns.

The framers of the Constitution did not dream that the Second Amendment would be applied to devices such as AK-47s or concealable handguns.

I have long noted that the pro-gun-rights arguments rely on the "original intent" of the framers. I believe that what the framers had in mind was that every able-bodied man should have a musket, a powder horn and a bag of bullets hanging over his mantle.

Those citizens might also have been expected to drill on the village green once a month.

The intent was to allow for a citizen militia to protect villages (and the several states).

Click to expand...

Armed citizens limit government power
I found one of Wednesday's letters about the Second Amendment, "No intent to protect modern weaponry" (Nov. 28), quite interesting.
A musket with a powder horn and a bag of bullets was a modern weapon in 1776. And any armed militia with modern weapons today wouldn't be carrying muskets; its members would be carrying AK-47s and weapons of that kind.

While the framers of the Constitution couldn't foresee the specifics of automatic weapons, they certainly understood that weapons evolve and improve.

And as for concealable handguns, there were plenty of concealed pistols and knives carried in 1776. Some of the framers probably carried them.

I believe that the intent of the Second Amendment was to do more than allow for a ready militia to support the government. I believe it was also intended to help keep that government in line.

Citizens who are armed have a louder voice than those who are not armed.

Mike Wicklein
Baltimore

Click to expand...

Limits on gun rights a political questionAgain we have some uproar over the meaning of the Second Amendment for individual gun ownership ("An individual right to keep, bear arms," letters, Nov. 28).

But I would point out that I am presently unable to walk down to the corner gun shop and purchase a rocket-propelled grenade, or any grenade.
I can buy a machine gun, but only after exhaustive paperwork and special permissions have been approved.
I am allowed (theoretically) to own an automatic rifle, but again, the paperwork is more than tedious.
Indeed, even simply buying a rifle, shotgun or handgun is not as simple as just plunking down some cash and taking the gun home.
As for a right to "bear arms," why, just try to walk around town with a rifle slung on your shoulder and see where that gets you.
So I say to those who insist that the original intent of the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms that such a right is already infringed, and has been for many, many years.
And if, indeed, society has a legitimate interest in infringing the right to keep and bear arms, the gun debate should be about what infringements on this right are acceptable. And this is a political, not a constitutional, discussion.

John Robinson
Baltimore

Click to expand...

​

foxtrapper said:

I am tempted to write a letter myself, and mention the need for tree branch control, since the last murder reported for B-mo was some poor guy beaten to death with a tree branch.

Click to expand...

HoChiWaWa said:

Arms is a generic term for weapons, surely our forefathers who saw many many technological advances in their times could forsee improvements in weaponry. Had they meant muskets and BP rifles, they would have said so.

Not to mention that pistols were already in existence and concealable.

Click to expand...

jpk1md said:

The Md Leg enacted Tree Branch control in 2006 iirc....LEGALLY you cannot cut down any trees in Md unless you are a licensed arborist in the state of Md..no joke folks.....I hope I have that title correct...don't want to offend any "Arborist" or they might come to my house and beat me with a tree branch or worse yet if their Scottish they'll club me with the entire tree trunk.....

Click to expand...

they might come to my house and beat me with a tree branch or worse yet if their Scottish they'll club me with the entire tree trunk

Click to expand...

novus collectus said:

I believe there were flintlock boot pistols back then too.

As far as the "our forefathers could not have envisioned the guns of today" argument goes, I love the counter argument to that. If the 2nd truly only applies to flintlock guns, then why can't we carry flintlock pistols concealed or openly on the streets of DC and Baltimore? If they were honest in their argument as such, then they would advocate the carry of those weapons as a civil right.

Click to expand...

coinboy said:

+1 for Novus! Good argument!

I will have to use that one one day.

Click to expand...

jpk1md said:

The Md Leg enacted Tree Branch control in 2006 iirc....LEGALLY you cannot cut down any trees in Md unless you are a licensed arborist in the state of Md..no joke folks.....I hope I have that title correct...don't want to offend any "Arborist" or they might come to my house and beat me with a tree branch or worse yet if their Scottish they'll club me with the entire tree trunk.....

Click to expand...

HoChiWaWa said:

Arms is a generic term for weapons, surely our forefathers who saw many many technological advances in their times could forsee improvements in weaponry. Had they meant muskets and BP rifles, they would have said so.

Click to expand...

ffrobbyrob said:

So I guess they are going to push for a ban on chain saws??

Click to expand...

ffrobbyrob said:

So I guess they are going to push for a ban on chain saws??

Click to expand...

novus collectus said:

Only the military and the police shoud have automatic saws known as chainsaws!!

Click to expand...

novus collectus said:

I believe there were flintlock boot pistols back then too.

As far as the "our forefathers could not have envisioned the guns of today" argument goes, I love the counter argument to that. If the 2nd truly only applies to flintlock guns, then why can't we carry flintlock pistols concealed or openly on the streets of DC and Baltimore? If they were honest in their argument as such, then they would advocate the carry of those weapons as a civil right.

Click to expand...

jpk1md said:

Do you think they'll descriminate between the electric versions and the 2-stroke engine versions?

Click to expand...

jpk1md said:

Hammers too!

Can't have those nasty claw hammers in the hands of civilains.

Click to expand...

novus collectus said:

I hear New Jersey is going to ban waffle head hammers because they are more damaging and much harder for surgeons to cloose the wounds caused by them (I stole that joke from someone else). Ban the assault hammers with the deadly waffle heads which is the gang member's hammer of choice.

Click to expand...