Letter: Paslov editorial

Once again a liberal is attempting to rewrite the Constitution. I refer to Susan Paslov's editorial in the Feb. 2 Nevada Appeal.

The greatest nation in the world is based on the freedom and rights laid out in the Constitution. It is beyond my understanding why anyone would want to destroy it.

The questions appear to be who is the militia, and is gun ownership an individual right?

How did the founding fathers view it?

Thomas Jefferson: "Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

George Mason: "I ask, Sir, whites the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples' liberty teeth. They deserve a place of honor."

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

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

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."

Richard H. Lee: "A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves."

How has the Supreme Court viewed it?

1989 U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez: "The people refers to a class of persons who are part of the national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The conclusion of this Supreme Court ruling is the term 'the people' is the same in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth amendments and also the Preamble."

1939 U.S. v. Miller was about the application of a sawed-off shotgun to the militia but also states, "These show plainly enough that the militia composed of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense and further that ordinarily when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

This eliminates the possibility of the militia being the National Guard, as guard members do not keep and bear their arms and are paid by the federal government. Also the guard and reserve were activated in World War II and sent to war. The militia was also activated but for home defense as specified in the Constitution - obviously two separate entities.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

A note to you defenders of the Constitution. This is an election year, and if you elect liberals to the House, Senate and a president who appoints liberal judges to the Supreme Court, you can bet their oath to defend the Constitution will mean nothing.




Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment