Dad - Voice of Reason? Or Rabble Rousing Pinko Commie?

@dawnald (85129)
Shingle Springs, California
January 29, 2013 3:36pm CST
This is my dad's letter to the editor regarding gun control: http://www.rgj.com/article/20130129/OPED02/301290026/Second-Amendment-rights-aren-t-unlimited?nclick_check=1 Pretty reasonable? Can somebody give me a reasonable argument that this isn't a reasonable position to take?
7 people like this
7 responses
@Hatley (163781)
• Garden Grove, California
29 Jan 13
hi dawn I read it and it does so und reasonable to me sol have no argument at all. Good for your dad. more power to him
4 people like this
@dawnald (85129)
• Shingle Springs, California
30 Jan 13
Does that mean I'm not allowed to own thermonuclear weapons?
1 person likes this
@mariaperalta (19073)
• Mexico
30 Jan 13
wow... your dad should be a politician. Id vote for him. Tell him well done. Makes alot of sence...
2 people like this
@dawnald (85129)
• Shingle Springs, California
30 Jan 13
Dad's too smart to be a politician!
1 person likes this
@cynthiann (18602)
• Jamaica
31 Jan 13
Excuse me?
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85129)
• Shingle Springs, California
7 Feb 13
I'm sure he'd make a fine Jamaican politician...
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
30 Jan 13
The Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from the government and listed the rights of the people. The second Amendment state "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If you notice the word Arms is in Capitalized meaning all weapons of war. it does not say that the rights of the militia it specifically states the people. At the time of the writing of the Constitution a Militia was citizens banding together on their own to protect themselves and their family and property. They were not controlled by the State Government or the Federal Government but by the people. He should also read the 9th and 10th amendments to see that many of the things the Federal Government is doing is not allowed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment makes it very clear that any power not granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the States or the people.
1 person likes this
@MsTickle (25180)
• Australia
30 Jan 13
lol...ahem, no one has the right to take someone's tights! good typo.
2 people like this
• Mojave, California
30 Jan 13
What about protecting people from people. I do not know much but it seems to me I have to worry more about some people in the real world over the government. They are taking my rights and many other tights away faster than the government.
2 people like this
• Mojave, California
30 Jan 13
oops, many other rights
2 people like this
@BarBaraPrz (45226)
• St. Catharines, Ontario
29 Jan 13
Kudos to your dad.
2 people like this
@dawnald (85129)
• Shingle Springs, California
30 Jan 13
from everybody except Uncle Duck...
1 person likes this
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
30 Jan 13
Hi dawnald, Of course your father is right here and yes the meaning of words have changed. Blessings.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85129)
• Shingle Springs, California
30 Jan 13
yeah, just look at the word "gay"...
@cynthiann (18602)
• Jamaica
29 Jan 13
This is a great letter and your Dad is a brave man to express his views. I believe him to be right. If he is a commie (didn't know that there were any left) then I am standing behind him.
2 people like this
@dawnald (85129)
• Shingle Springs, California
30 Jan 13
I guess I won't be buying myself a grenade or an atom bomb any time soon...
1 person likes this
@topffer (42156)
• France
29 Jan 13
Interesting. I was not aware that the French Revolution played a role in this amendment. If I remember well, the right to keep arms has been rejected during the discussion of the 1791 French constitution. It is anecdotal because this constitution has been replaced by another one in 1793, replaced by another one in 1795, replaced by another one in 1799, replaced by etc. It looks like constitutions are written to be replaced when the ink is not yet dried in France. Living here I have some difficulties to understand how you can feel that your constitution is written for eternity. You can do this only by interpreting it constantly, because a society needs to evolve. Like your father says, in 1789 "“Arms” originally meant muzzle-loading, single-shot weapons"... and perhaps also swords and sabers, more efficient at this time that one of those weapons using a black powder fearing humidity. After stating that this amendment "is a pillar of our democracy" your father undermines -- I could not resist to use this term -- meticulously this pillar by using a good old exegetical method. Nobody could be more reasonable.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85129)
• Shingle Springs, California
30 Jan 13
Nobody can know exactly what the founding fathers were thinking, and we certainly can't know what they would think about the many changes in the world, and the problems facing us today. We can only interpret based on their writings, their speeches and what was reported by friends, reporters, etc. back then. Even our constitution, while never replaced, has been amended, and some of the amendments have either been amended or rescinded. Although many of the principles in the constitution and its amendments still hold true today, we do need to evolve as things change. Getting agreement on what needs to change, now that is hard.
2 people like this