LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the editor for Dec. 16, 2007
Something in the water?
Re "Gun Control vs. Gun Rights: Restricting arms ownership reasonable," editorial, Dec. 9:
The Second Amendment has 27 words. Millions more have been written and spoken in arguments about what those 27 words mean! The Dec. 9 editorial added another 1,000 to the pro- and anti-gun factions. The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, but we even dispute its verdict.
Regrettably the founding fathers were far too vague and short-sighted about the Second Amendment and the First.
Documents like this should have every "i" dotted, every "t" crossed. That is why warranties, wills, credit card agreements, etc., are so verbose. This, too, is regrettable but necessary in our litigious society.
Above all the rhetoric and statistical analyses, one fact dominates: The U.S. gun-related death rate is 300 times that of countries like Britain that have no "Second Amendment." Is there something in the water to account for this anomaly?
As long as the National Rifle Association owns Congress, we must expect events such as those that occurred recently in Omaha, Neb.; Denver; and Colorado Springs, Colo. We'll have to get used to it!
Incidentally, during my service and civilian careers, I probably fired thousands more rounds than any News-Journal reader, but "gun-ho" I am not.
HORACE HONE, Palm Coast
Clarifies who's the militia
Anyone who advocates the regulation and control of firearms in the state of Florida is pitifully ignorant of the constitutions of both the United States and Florida. I offer the two following citations as evidence:
· From the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." This amendment clearly requires that the right of a member of a state militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
· From Article X, Section 2 (a) of the Florida Constitution: "The militia shall be composed of all able-bodied inhabitants of the state who are or have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States; and no person because of religious creed or opinion shall be exempted from military duty except upon condition provided by law."
No exception is made for age, sex, race or criminal record. In other words, if you don't have a letter from the governor or a copy of a law passed by the Legislature granting you an exemption, every one of us living in Florida is a member of the Florida state militia!
Assuming that both constitutions are valid, any ordinance that limits the right of a Florida resident to keep and bear arms is patently unconstitutional. Do NRA lawyers understand that? Are they ignorant of the constitutional rights of their members, or are they ignoring the facts in order to squeeze more contributions from their members to "defend" their gun rights?
Perhaps I am wrong on both counts. Perhaps the governments of both the United States and the state of Florida no longer regard their constitutions as law. I believe that a cogent argument for that fact can be made, but that will have to wait for another letter.
JOHN A. JAMES, Pierson
Individual right to arm
The weak argument that the Second Amendment is a collective right for members of state militias to keep and bear arms, rather than an individual right to keep and bear arms highlights the editorial writer's ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.
The News-Journal's argument is dependent on a "rogue" decision of an activist Supreme Court ruling. The fact is most constitutional scholars think the Second Amendment is an individual right for one simple reason that The News-Journal must completely ignore to make its hollow argument: There would have been no reason to mention this issue in the Constitution for the purpose of meddling in affairs that are already reserved to the states by the Tenth Amend
Here is the link to the newspaper,
http://www.news-journalonline.com/index.htm
Letters to the editor for Dec. 16, 2007
Something in the water?
Re "Gun Control vs. Gun Rights: Restricting arms ownership reasonable," editorial, Dec. 9:
The Second Amendment has 27 words. Millions more have been written and spoken in arguments about what those 27 words mean! The Dec. 9 editorial added another 1,000 to the pro- and anti-gun factions. The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, but we even dispute its verdict.
Regrettably the founding fathers were far too vague and short-sighted about the Second Amendment and the First.
Documents like this should have every "i" dotted, every "t" crossed. That is why warranties, wills, credit card agreements, etc., are so verbose. This, too, is regrettable but necessary in our litigious society.
Above all the rhetoric and statistical analyses, one fact dominates: The U.S. gun-related death rate is 300 times that of countries like Britain that have no "Second Amendment." Is there something in the water to account for this anomaly?
As long as the National Rifle Association owns Congress, we must expect events such as those that occurred recently in Omaha, Neb.; Denver; and Colorado Springs, Colo. We'll have to get used to it!
Incidentally, during my service and civilian careers, I probably fired thousands more rounds than any News-Journal reader, but "gun-ho" I am not.
HORACE HONE, Palm Coast
Clarifies who's the militia
Anyone who advocates the regulation and control of firearms in the state of Florida is pitifully ignorant of the constitutions of both the United States and Florida. I offer the two following citations as evidence:
· From the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." This amendment clearly requires that the right of a member of a state militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
· From Article X, Section 2 (a) of the Florida Constitution: "The militia shall be composed of all able-bodied inhabitants of the state who are or have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States; and no person because of religious creed or opinion shall be exempted from military duty except upon condition provided by law."
No exception is made for age, sex, race or criminal record. In other words, if you don't have a letter from the governor or a copy of a law passed by the Legislature granting you an exemption, every one of us living in Florida is a member of the Florida state militia!
Assuming that both constitutions are valid, any ordinance that limits the right of a Florida resident to keep and bear arms is patently unconstitutional. Do NRA lawyers understand that? Are they ignorant of the constitutional rights of their members, or are they ignoring the facts in order to squeeze more contributions from their members to "defend" their gun rights?
Perhaps I am wrong on both counts. Perhaps the governments of both the United States and the state of Florida no longer regard their constitutions as law. I believe that a cogent argument for that fact can be made, but that will have to wait for another letter.
JOHN A. JAMES, Pierson
Individual right to arm
The weak argument that the Second Amendment is a collective right for members of state militias to keep and bear arms, rather than an individual right to keep and bear arms highlights the editorial writer's ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.
The News-Journal's argument is dependent on a "rogue" decision of an activist Supreme Court ruling. The fact is most constitutional scholars think the Second Amendment is an individual right for one simple reason that The News-Journal must completely ignore to make its hollow argument: There would have been no reason to mention this issue in the Constitution for the purpose of meddling in affairs that are already reserved to the states by the Tenth Amend
Here is the link to the newspaper,
http://www.news-journalonline.com/index.htm