Mediaboss Marketing

A closer look at the Second Amendment

In response to William Ivesters letter to the editor on Monday about the Second Amendment, I ask that he look again at the amendment. It is clever to pick phrases out of context, but that is misguided. Amendment 2 in its entirety 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 infringed.

Clearly, the last part of the sentence refers to the first part a well-regulated militia. In todays parlance, I believe that means each states National Guard. Last time I checked, every gun owner in the United States was not a member of the National Guard.

The judiciary is expressly empowered, by the Constitution, to review, analyze and rule on the meaning of the words of our Constitution. For example, where does the Constitution say guns? It doesnt. It says arms. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to determine what is meant by arms. Bombs? Anti-aircraft missiles? This word, like many others, has to be defined in each generation.

America of the 21st century is very different from the America of our Founding Fathers. Our ability to interpret the foundational documents of our Republic in light of the realities of the world we live in is crucial to the vitality of our nation. It is time, and it is appropriate and necessary, for our country to enact legislation that seeks to protect its citizens.

Cathy Swerdlow Longwood

As a graduate student studying writing at the University of Central Florida, I read Scott Maxwells Sunday column on grammar with great interest. It may surprise him to find out, though, that I am on his side.

While the self-appointed grammar police patrol public writing, ever vigilant for imagined crimes against the English language, modern linguistics scholars acknowledge that language changes, and the language rules change with it. They know and appreciate that Ernest Hemingway splits infinitives, Jane Austen ends sentences with prepositions, and E.B. White himself uses sentence fragments and comma splices. Great writing comes from brilliant use of words, not blind obedience to dictatorial grammar rules.

And kudos to Maxwell for defending his writing with a good dictionary. What a great counterattack to grammar police brutality. Hopefully, these militant grammarians will reference their own 21st-century rule book before they literally pounce on Maxwell again.

Leslie Nixon Ormond Beach

Normally, I would excoriate the Sentinels editor for printing a letter like Bill Lanes on Sunday with its theme of "drip drip drip" as "evidence of collusion" between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

However, since the mainstream news sources coupled with the intelligence community and Democratic politicians offer the same nonproof of such, I'll give the newspaper a pass on publishing "fake news."

David Holley Orlando

In response to President Trump's accusation that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, Sen. Marco Rubio said if we find out it's not true, he'll have to explain what he meant.

Trump's history is to tell a lie and defend it aggressively, or say the media twisted his meaning, Then tell another bigger lie to divert attention from the first one. His lies are tied up in so many knots 100 sailors in 10 years couldn't untie them.

How about reversing Rubios plan of action? Demand that Trump prove his claim is true.

There is a truism that it's much easier to prove a positive than a negative. If hes as smart as we've been told, Trump could clear this up in minutes. His mendacity is mindful of the boy who cried wolf. One day the wolves will devour their creator.

James Weatherspoon St. Cloud

Read the original:
What the Second Amendment really says about guns: Letters - Orlando Sentinel

|

Posted: Mar 08, 2017 12:01 AM

When the U. S. Supreme Court issued its seminal rulings in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), finding that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms that must be recognized by the states, many Americans felt like the issue of the Second Amendment had finally been settled in America. Unfortunately, as we would quickly see in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere -- it was only the latest chapter in what has become an endless battle for the natural right of self-defense.

Take, for instance, the District of Columbias post-Heller fix to its unconstitutional gun laws -- forcing citizens to obtain a license to carry firearms outside their home, but failing to provide any mechanism by which to obtain a license. In other jurisdictions, including Illinois and Seattle, officials attempted to create de facto gun bans by increasing the cost of ownership through taxes and fees, regardless of the impact on minority citizens. Former President Obama, too, had his own way of side-stepping these otherwise clear Supreme Court rulings, and employed the resources of numerous agencies and departments -- most of which have no colorable jurisdiction over firearms, such as the FDIC and CDC in an often unnoticed drive to undermine the 2nd Amendment.

You have to give gun control advocates points for being clever; which is what makes a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit all the more frightening.

Despite the clear, well-reasoned rulings in Heller and McDonald, the 4th Circuit took the exact opposite approach in upholding Marylands assault weapon ban; and, in doing so, created an entirely subjective litmus test for what types of guns could be regulated by the State. The appellate Court found that Marylands ban of 81 firearms was legal because the guns were weapons of war. This conclusion is beyond laughable, insofar as U.S. military versions of such civilian firearms are capable of fully automatic fire, which the civilian versions at issue in the court case are not.

The Fourth Circuit justices, like Bill Clinton with his 1994 assault weapons ban, chose to base its decision not on facts, history, or common sense, but on whether the firearms at issue looked like military-style firearms. La La Land wins again.

As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in 2015, if a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

Perhaps now the Supreme Court might finally hear a challenge to these arbitrary bans on semi-automatic weapons, after passing on several post-Heller requests for clarification on the issue.

However, despite this ludicrous Fourth Circuit ruling, there have been some positive developments for gun rights. Last week, President Donald Trump signed a bill from Congress that stopped a proposed rule change made in the twilight of the Obama Administration, requiring the Social Security Administration (yet another agency employed by Obama in his war on guns) to report to the FBI citizens deemed mentally defective, so as to prevent them from owning firearms -- without any due process before depriving them of this constitutional right. The fear, and rightfully so, is that this list of disqualifying factors of gun ownership would include non-impairing conditions, such as eating disorders.

Another bill aimed at protecting innocent Americans from having their rights arbitrarily curbed is the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, a version of which has been introduced in both the House and Senate. The Act intends to create a national system of reciprocity among states for holders of concealed carry permits, eliminating the fear and uncertainty for law-abiding individuals when traveling through states like Connecticut, California, and Maryland. Finally, travelers may be able to exercise their right to self-defense without having to worry about being slapped with a felony simply because they crossed a state line. But this battle is far from over.

Finally, the long-awaited Hearing Protect Act may reach the presidents desk this year after failing to do so in 2015. The bill, H.R. 367, would eliminate a $200 fee associated with buying a silencer; but more importantly, remove regulatory hurdles that have kept most law-abiding citizens from purchasing such items since 1934. Liberals, convinced the reality of guns is what they see in a Hollywood movie, are in hysterics; but the truth is silencers (more properly known as suppressers) muffle, but do not eliminate, the report of a firearm being fired, so as to protect the hearing of the shooter and those in the vicinity.

The first weeks of Trumps presidency have been filled with at least a few wins for the Second Amendment. However, it is more important than ever to be vigilant about the counter-efforts of gun control advocates, who remain very much alive and well in both houses of Congress -- and in both parties and in state legislators from coast to coast.

See the original post here:
2nd Amendment Rights Some Setbacks, and a Few Wins - Townhall

Australian immigrant Nick Adams appeared on Good Morning Britain with Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid to discuss President Trumps supposed Muslim ban.

Things took an interesting turn when Reid suggested Trumps Muslim ban is ineffective and instead suggested the president take a hardline stance on guns.

As a resident, if you want to make the U.S. safer, you dont target immigrants, you look at the biggest problem, surely threatening Americans everyday, and thats the absolutely shocking level of gun crime, Reid told Adams. And if President Trump directed his attention to towards tightening up controls on firearms that would immediately make the country a safer place.

Do you not understand that people lookat this from outside the United States and scratch their heads going, Why would you not want to have extreme vetting on lunatics or criminals getting their hands on high-power guns?'

Adams response to why the Second Amendment is important was spot on:

Author's Bio: Beth Baumann

Read more here:
Piers Morgan Gets a Dose of Second Amendment Reality on Good Morning Britain - Bearing Arms

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

1

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

The Second Amendment is not about guns, Instead, it is about the inalienable right to self defense.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

CJ Letter 1:56 p.m. ET March 6, 2017

Weapons(Photo: Czanner, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that the Second Amendment does not apply to weapons of war. I beg to differ. In our founders day, the musket was a weapon of war and a firearm widely used outside of war.Like most people today, our founders knew that technology would advance. Clearly, they believed that one day tyrants could rise again. This was the single most important aspect of why the founders established the Second Amendment. No modern day judge could possibly reach any other conclusion unless influenced by self-ideology. The Second Amendment not only covers AR-15s and AK-47s, but bigger more powerful semi automatics. Killers can always kill when they are facing unarmed victims, but this is not so for the armed citizen facing soldiers with semi-automatic weapons, for revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles are limited against such firepower. The Second Amendment is not about guns, Instead, it is about the inalienable right to self defense, a right that should never be defined by any man or woman, but protected by the oaths of statesmen, who have pledged to uphold that right.

Mark Damon Milby

Pekin, Indiana47165

Read or Share this story: http://cjky.it/2mwYPeE

3:46

3:28

4:00

1:53

2:18

6:56

7:28

3:15

3:05

3:51

3:38

3:12

2:41

3:38

2:31

3:22

3:45

1:33

1:56

3:24

3:03

3:39

3:14

3:37

3:56

3:01

2:19

4:36

2:58

1:47

0) { %>

0) { %>

Link:
Weapons of war should be allowed | Letter - The Courier-Journal

All Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to attend Second Amendment Day at the Iowa State Capitol tomorrow, March 7. Second Amendment advocates will have the opportunity to meet with legislators and other pro-gun Iowans, in addition to watching the floor proceedings as the House of Representatives consider House File 517, the omnibus bill which would make many pro-gun reforms for Iowa gun owners. Further details can be found below. Also, please click the Take Action button below to contact your state Representative and urge them to SUPPORT HF 517!

Second Amendment Day Tuesday, March 7, 2017 Iowa State Capitol 1007 E. Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50319

10:00am-10:45am: Presentation and Speakers, Room 102 10:45am-12:00pm: Lobby Time 12:00pm: House of Representatives vote on HF 517

HF 517 covers a diverse range of important issues for gun owners. Included in HF 517 are the following pro-gun reforms:

Please stay tuned to your email inbox andwww.nraila.orgfor further updates on this bill as it advances through the Iowa Legislature.

Follow this link:
Iowa: Attend Second Amendment Day at the Iowa State Capitol! - NRA ILA