- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up

Cortland


Residential
3 bedroom, 1 bath
$51000


Columbiana


Commercial
bedroom, bath
$1850000


- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Bill of Rights protects everyone


Published: Tue, January 25, 2011 @ 12:00 a.m.

Bill of Rights protects everyone

While it is true that Jared Lee Loughner purchased a gun and committed a horrible crime with it, the Second Amendment was not written to prevent or predict such acts. The Second Amendment was primarily written to protect the American people from an overbearing government that would desire to disarm its citizens. Our wise Founding Fathers knew that the government that they established could eventually become corrupted to the point where it wanted to decide everything for its citizens, take as much of their money from them as they could, and that the members of such government would attempt to exclude themselves from the laws it expects the citizens to follow. Modern examples of such corruption: the liberal left agenda, ridiculous taxation and the unwanted health-care bill, in that order.

The Second Amendment was also written in full realization that firearms can and will be used as tools for committing crimes. However, if citizens were not allowed to openly carry and keep guns, then only criminals and law enforcement will have them. That possibility would make criminals more brazen to commit crimes. It is well known that thieves are less likely to steal from a house or business that has a good security system. Likewise, criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they know that their would-be victims might be armed.

One of your readers suggested in a Jan. 16 letter that “criminal investigations, psychological evaluations and a minimal amount of training must become the prerequisites for the purchase of a gun.” While that sounds reasonable on the surface, the Second Amendment does not make such guidelines and it does so purposefully. To what degree of investigation, testing and training is considered fair and not biased toward mass exclusion of gun ownership? Again our wise Founding Fathers knew that establishing qualifications for bearing arms beyond just being a citizen would lead to more and more restrictions until virtually everyone is not permitted to have a gun. This is one of the reasons that the Bill of Rights is so absolute in its clarity. Owning a firearm as a free citizen is a legal right, plain and simple.

Our Founding Fathers devised the Bill of Rights to prevent our government from becoming like the (then) monarch dictatorship of England which they fought a war to break free from. The excuse that crimes are being committed as a reason to alter the Second Amendment does not follow proper logic or even critical thinking.

Michael E. Scott, Canfield


Comments

1INYOURFACE(33 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

I agree with your comments relative to gun support, but not the liberal left as you call it. I prefer to call it progressive left if you will You appear to be a conservative right, right from the backwoods of Canfield,what else could we expect. People in this area always want to refer to the South as being backward and racist, I always say take a look our own backyards, especially, Canfield and Poland

Suggest removal:

2cambridge(2312 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

INYOURFCE.....I agree completely with your description of the writer, just one more letter from one more backwoods hillbilly with a computer.

When people constantly refer to the "founding fathers" it's a clue that they spend their life looking in the rear view mirror and actually consider the word "progressive" as a negative.

You gotta just laugh.

Suggest removal:

3Ianacek(437 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

I agree with liberal gun ownership , but I think it should be a societal responsibility to ensure conditions exist which minimise the opprtunity & inclination for guns to be used for criminal purposes .

Suggest removal:

4James_S(153 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

Michael E. Scott, Canfield,

Your interpretation here is right on the money.

Sad thing is, however, is that the majority of our elected representatives, both Republican and Democrat, abide by the newer, more politically correct, revised version of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that was revised by them and their predecessors before them.

And it appears as though there are some from John Q. Public who have been duped into believing this revised version is telling the truth...

Things don't look good for America.

Suggest removal:

5ytownsteelman(363 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

What was the point in referring to this man as a backwards hillbilly? Why does your side of the argument ALWAYS have to resort to name calling?

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2012 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: