From Tom Brantmeier
Monroe
To the editor:
The whole discussion on gun rights and the Second amendment is pretty simple:
I would wager few people have ever read the Second Amendment, and to help change that - here it is:
"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."
Pretty basic, eh? Pretty simple. Even though it is in 1791 English, it really only says one thing. What do you see that it says? Lots of words in one sentence, but by definition, each sentence has one idea unless there is an "and" or such. Here is the way we are used to hearing this kind of sentence: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well- regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state." (or - so we can have a well regulated Militia which is very necessary to the security of a free state.)
This one original sentence does not also say: "and so anyone then can have any kind of gun he wants and do whatever he wants with it." No, that one original sentence is all about the militia, something very necessary back then. After all - the War of 1812 was only a few years away, and that war was all about a strong militia. We won that war, and became a real nation because of that militia. Since we don't have a Militia as it was thought of back then - I suggest anyone wanting to have a high power, high magazine gun, should join the National Guard or the Reserves and go over to Afghanistan and practice with the military's automatic weapons. I'm sure it would be fun for you all.
By the way, just to make it clear - I am not against guns in the least. I have several that I use for keeping animal pests from wrecking things on my farm. I also very much appreciate my friends who are hunters that have guns. But let's be reasonable about all this. Please.
Monroe
To the editor:
The whole discussion on gun rights and the Second amendment is pretty simple:
I would wager few people have ever read the Second Amendment, and to help change that - here it is:
"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."
Pretty basic, eh? Pretty simple. Even though it is in 1791 English, it really only says one thing. What do you see that it says? Lots of words in one sentence, but by definition, each sentence has one idea unless there is an "and" or such. Here is the way we are used to hearing this kind of sentence: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well- regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state." (or - so we can have a well regulated Militia which is very necessary to the security of a free state.)
This one original sentence does not also say: "and so anyone then can have any kind of gun he wants and do whatever he wants with it." No, that one original sentence is all about the militia, something very necessary back then. After all - the War of 1812 was only a few years away, and that war was all about a strong militia. We won that war, and became a real nation because of that militia. Since we don't have a Militia as it was thought of back then - I suggest anyone wanting to have a high power, high magazine gun, should join the National Guard or the Reserves and go over to Afghanistan and practice with the military's automatic weapons. I'm sure it would be fun for you all.
By the way, just to make it clear - I am not against guns in the least. I have several that I use for keeping animal pests from wrecking things on my farm. I also very much appreciate my friends who are hunters that have guns. But let's be reasonable about all this. Please.
