Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

2nd Amendment

March 6, 2013

Dear editor: The Second Amendment to our Constitution states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(42)

MTOMTO

Mar-08-13 1:13 PM

As I have said before, I want a drone.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

archaeo1

Mar-08-13 12:59 PM

Lee, once an --- always an---. on another note with all the talk about not wanting to regulate fire arms why not have mandatory training...After all the average police officer only hita a target 18% of the time..next teachers cant punish kids but some believe they should carry guns...If an untrained person is allowed to carry a gun why cant he have a tazzer.. And did I not see the # 2 man in the NRA believes if a person wants they should be allowed to have surface to air missles . I assumed he ment shoulder held but im not sure after he left the door open to nuclear weapons....... What kind of tea do many of you have at your meetings.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

archaeo1

Mar-08-13 12:38 PM

Gary , scary as it might seem ,some are members of a malitia. You dont have to use a gallon of gas to find a malitia locally.Yikes

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-08-13 10:50 AM

"It's all about context."

Is it context or interpretation of intent? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" to me is intended to enable citizens to protect their rights from threats foreign or domestic, not to limit the type of protection to the technology at the time of the writing. Sorry if you feel that I let you down, but "shall not be infringed" is still pretty clear to me.

Were there mentally challenged citizens or felonious criminals in society at the time of the writing? I honestly (not sarcastically) wonder why it was not addressed in the amendment at that time. I would think that a simple qualifier in the second amendment could have covered this?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brazil

Mar-08-13 10:19 AM

Lifelong - Sorry to disappoint :) MTOMTO - It's all about context. I expect better from you. Check and see if there were any 65mph speed limit signs in 1922. Now do you get it?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lifelongresident

Mar-08-13 9:57 AM

But I can still go shoot my rifle if I want to in April. That isn't an arms law that's a game law. Lame argument in my opinion. Brazil you usually bring much better views to the table than that!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-07-13 4:11 PM

"Ever go deer hunting in April in PA?"

No thanks, after a PA Winter, the deer would be pretty thin and gamey tasting.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-07-13 4:09 PM

"To my way of thinking it allows you to have unlimited muskets."

Please show me where the second amendment references muskets?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brazil

Mar-07-13 3:18 PM

Good point. You have all kinds of infringements. The constitution is being reinterpreted all the time. Why is the 2nd Amendment sacrosanct when it comes to interpretation. To my way of thinking it allows you to have unlimited muskets. Different arms mean different definitions. Your right to use your arms is infringed upon all the time. Ever go deer hunting in April in PA?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-07-13 2:04 PM

No, a third party, like a gun store would do the check for a fee. And, yes, I believe a background check would be necessary to determine whether someone's brother-in-law is a convicted felon. Do you think convicted felons do not have family members or do you think that convicted felons should have free access to firearms?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-07-13 1:46 PM

"We accept infringements now because they are sensible."

Who determines sensible? Is sensible expecting anyone who sells a gun to his brother in law to do a background check? Look at some of our laws, sensible is nonsensical.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-07-13 12:29 PM

We do have laws that affect all those other rights: Speech (you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater or slander someone - at least without penalty); Press (libel laws and gag orders); religion (polygamy is illegal in most states and what about gay marriage in some states?) How do you feel about gay marriage, PCR?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProudCountyResident

Mar-07-13 12:02 PM

If we can pick adn choose which arms are good and bad for the people, can we not also choose which speech, press, religion, or other rights are actually good and which ones need regulated? At the time of the constitutionwhat you are saying would have gotten you in prison or killed for "sedition". Good thing they aren't treating the first ammendment like the second, huh?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Mar-07-13 11:54 AM

Is it really that clear, MTO? We accept infringements now because they are sensible. We infringe the gun ownership rights of convicted felons and the criminally insane. We infringe the rights of people to have fully automatic weapons and weapons of mass destruction. We infringe the rights of people to buy guns and sell them to people in those categories, although the NRA and its sheep don't want regulations that would adequately enforce that, like universal background checks. At least I am happy that some people are at least acknowledging the opening statement of the amendment, which lays the groundwork for its intent.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-07-13 10:53 AM

"I have never suggested BANNING guns, simply regulating them and their shooters more responsibly."

"You are on the wrong side of the issue and in the end there will be significant additional steps taken to control guns."

Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"Shall not be infringed", seems pretty clear to me.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brazil

Mar-06-13 10:01 PM

Guess Again no one said that things would automatically become perfect with more regulation and penalties. It's quite disengenious of you to take on side and then try to represent the other sides point of view. Your characterization regarding countries with significant restrictions is an out and out falsehood. Certainly if you want to cherry pick Jamaica etc. you can make that point but don't forget Japan, Europe and the rest of the Western world. You are on the wrong side of the issue and in the end there will be significant additional steps taken to control guns. It might not happen this year or this decade but it is going to happen. The demographics in this Country are moving that way and there is nothing you can do in the end to stop it.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Mar-06-13 7:18 PM

Who would have guessed that you are a smoker! Tobacco kills far more many people annually than guns do. I have never suggested BANNING guns, simply regulating them and their shooters more responsibly. What ought to be banned is tobacco. It has no redeeming qualities and taxation and regulation don't seem to stop people from killing themselves with the stuff. I will agree that I am far more safe with my guns than you are with your smokes.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

guessagain

Mar-06-13 5:41 PM

I am a smoker. I smoke in my house and in my car. If you do not want me to smoke in your house or in your car that is your right. Do not come into my house or car and tell me I can not smoke. We ALL have the same rights. I have no problem in respecting your rights, so respect mine.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Mar-06-13 5:12 PM

PCR - I agree. You are having a hard time.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Mar-06-13 5:09 PM

Strong arguments, guess-again. Never heard those points before.

Brilliant!!!

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

guessagain

Mar-06-13 4:16 PM

For those people that do not want guns, don't get a gun. I am not forcing you to get one. If you really believe that by putting a ban on guns, they will automatically disappear and this country would be a safer place. Go on thinking that if you want. The majority of guns used by criminals are either stolen or black market. So how are the laws and banning doing any good? The places that have the toughest laws are the places that have the most crime due to guns.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brazil

Mar-06-13 4:07 PM

Cannon deaths have always been a major problem in this Country.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-06-13 3:13 PM

Ted Nugent for President!

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProudCountyResident

Mar-06-13 2:50 PM

You can form your own. They are to be properly chartered with rules and bylaws in accordance with the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Otherwise, you can join one of the miltias already formed.

Or were you being sarcastic? I have a hard time telling when people are being sarcastic or if they actually want to know something.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Mar-06-13 2:44 PM

But we citizens are armed now!! Where do I sign up for the militia??

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 42 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web