It would seem one of your regular contributors to the letters to the editor section of The Daily Advance has proven his ignorance of the definition of words as well as the wording and facts of the Constitution.
In a letter that appeared in your Feb. 5th edition, “Robbery shows why guns needed,” the writer states that “the Second Amendment is immutable.” No, it isn’t. Immutable means “not capable of susceptible to change.” The fact that the Constitution can be amended (or amendments can be repealed as in the 18th) is proof of this alone. The fact that it’s name; “Second Amendment” alone decrees that it was once a change or addition also proves this point.
Now as for the writer’s view of the Second Amendment, it once again is utterly out of touch with an actual reading of it. He only cites one part of it for his argument: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Here is the whole amendment, as ratified by the 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.”
Notice the words “militia” and “security of a free state?” If the reader was familiar with historical facts and clauses 15 and 16 to the Constitution, he would see that a militia was not referencing the local gun club — as the rhetoric of our day seems to allude to. And as for security of a free state? I will just copy clause 15 of the Constitution for your readers: “The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Please notice it does point out insurrections. Note of historical reality here: no government in all of history ever thought its citizens should be allowed to shoot back.
Basically this reader has decided that the thought of a his possible dystopian views becoming our future seems to be more important than the current dystopian reality that has played out in Aurora, Colo.; Newtown, Conn.; Tucson, Ariz., and dozens of other places.
MICHAEL DANIELS
Elizabeth City
Comments
living document to accomodate new issues
I can understand and accept. Some genuine disagreement in interpretation is understandable too to a point. On the Second Amendment though I see some discounting the comma between the reference to the militia and the people as a grave mistake. I do not believe that comma was meant to be overlooked nor can we allow it to be. Do you think I am wrong on this? I am not a scholar.
This is a reply to Liberty Belle's comment. I don't know why it didn't fall in line.
The Consititution
I grew up believing everyone loved and fully embraced the U.S. Constitution. I now know that is not true. What I also never was aware of was that there was so much interpretation of this document that it was really as if two documents existed. With such distances existing on our understanding of the Constitution, we as a democratic republic are as fragile as the gossamer financial system Wall Street and Washington have created for us.
A Living Document
The Constitution is called a "living document" because of its adaptation to evolving circumstances. It's a lot like scripture, open to private interpretation, and full of opportunities for sincere disagreement.
On the other hand
The Bill of Rights was adopted for the people, not the government. Since when did the U S Government ever need any "rights"?
Amen Twinstar
Amen Twinstar. The founders of our country were leery of giving too much power to the central government. They had just fought a war to end overpowering government and weren't ABOUT to saddle themselves with that sort of thing again. The Bill of Rights is testament to that.
Actually, the constitution
Actually, the constitution gave the central government MORE power than the proceeding document did. (Articles of Confederation.)
The Articles were in ratified 1781, and were replaced by the constitution in March 1789. They strengthened the central government, as the Federalist papers written by Madison and Hamilton stated publicly to ensure a stronger operation and survival of this country.
Modern revisionism does not dismiss the realities that happened.
I was referring to King
I was referring to King George the 3rd and the British Parliament, not the Articles of Confederation. The king and parliament exerted far too much control over the American colonists. That's what led to rebellion. When our fore-fathers opened the War for Independence they first operated under the Articles of Confederation. These proved too weak to govern effectively. A stronger central government was a recognized necessity, but rememberances of the excesses of king and parliament led the framers of the Constitution to create a government which would be responsive to the will of the people. Guaranteeing an armed populace was one way in which a responsive government was guaranteed. The other amendments in the Bill of Rights followed along similar lines to a similar purpose.
Funny how selective people
Funny how selective people are when reading the Constitution.
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This means the although congress may not establish a religion the states retain that right. In other words, North Carolina has the right to establish an official religion. If State run courts or schools want to include elements of religion it is up to them, not the federal courts to decide.
I say this because for 175 years Americans included religion (Christianity) in their education and official activities without challenge. And up until the last couple of decades, no one ever thought of challenging the right of individuals to purchase or bear arms. If those rights were not constitutional, they would have been eliminated during the lifetime of the founders.
It is today's revisionists that are trying to have a coop against the constitution without using the legal process of an amendment.
what about this?
Two things to note: 1) "Sec. 13. Religious liberty.
All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience."
that would be from the North Carolina Constitution.
2) You were correct that the constitution applied only the the federal government for years... then the 14th amendment was passed:
the first part shall suffice to post here:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
that was put in deliberately to ensure that states would not infringe upon rights granted by the federal constitution.
The Bill of Rights
Constitutional amendments numbers 1-10 comprise what's known as "The Bill of Rights." These 10 amendments were added to the original draft of the Constitution at the insistence of the states (North Carolina, in particular) before the states would ratify (vote to approve) the new Constitution in 1789. Because these 10 amendments define the rights of the people and were insisted on by the creators of our government they hold a special sacredness and permanence among the founding documents of our nation.
but the 2nd amendment was not
but the 2nd amendment was not put in to arm its citizens to fight off the American government. It was put in so people could keep arms to defend themselves against foreign invaders and enemies (Indians, British, Spanish....) and be a ready militia.
The writers of the constitution didn't ad it in so people could over throw them (them being the writers). Also, the tenth amendment was added because many states saw themselves as being individual nations (South Carolina the most glaring example).
That debate was (or should have been) settled 152 years ago.
Hi. I unwittingly answered
Hi. I unwittingly answered you when I posted to Twinstar above. Hope this helps. :)
Add comment
Look Up Opinion Now Get Fast Definitions. Free Toolbar
AddonReveiws.com/Reference
opinion
Dynamic search page. Find opinion
twely.co.uk
advisory opinion
Search results regarding advisory opinion
myquestions.co.uk
Newspaper Online - FREE
100% Free Online News Reader. Read current news online. Download Here!
inewsreader.net