Article: Questioning the Second Amendment.

I’m not sure how this letter made it to the Las Vegas Informer; a publication I’m just learning of. It’s worth posting as it shows just how, frankly, stupid, naive, and disrespectful some are to our constitutional rights. I’m rather shocked that the intelligent members of the Informer Media Group would have something this base on their website. Granted, their academic credentials might bias them towards liberal gun-hate, but usually, even the most ardent and vitriolic antis are a little more eloquent than Mr. Kenneth Roberts, 92, a WWII Navy vet from Rhode Island.

The original ‘article’ is here.

My response to his points: 

1. “Keep” means the same thing as own.
2. The founders meant all arms—including swords and firearms, of the type used by the military so that citizens could be on par with those who might impose them. And let’s not forget that in those early days, the militias were the military and militiamen were usually the first to sign up when a national army was raised.
3. “Bear” does mean carry.
4. This makes no sense.
5. People don’t need a special amendment to give them a right to bear arms and risk their lives in battle; the government needs something like the Bill of Rights to tell them what they can’t do. Frankly, we shouldn't need a Bill of Rights at all; the rights ought to be respected regardless.
6. The founders did expect courts and governments to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. That’s why they enacted the Second Amendment.
7. You're right. There has always been an unwritten right, given by God, for man to defend himself against danger, enemies, or tyrants. But as I said in number 5, the Bill of Rights is to tell the government what it can't do. It's not a permission slip for us. 

Mr. Roberts is apparently too stupid to comprehend that the Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with wars and everything to do with the ability of the public to overthrow an abusive and tyrannical government, the same way we did about a decade and a half before the Second Amendment was enacted. Mr. Roberts is totally ignorant of American history and the purpose of our laws. It’s shocking that a man born in an age where education about these things was generally better and our people more connected to our history has these kinds of thoughts and opinions.

While I’m usually not one to attack a veteran or the elderly, I’d seriously like to call into question the nature of Mr. Roberts’ service in the Navy during WWII. What were his duties? Where did he serve? Did he see combat? Perhaps the man’s age is at play and senility or dementia is clouding his mental process. None of what he said is defensible or even an intelligent statement. This is something I’d expect of a teenager, but not a fully grown adult from ‘The Greatest Generation.’

Mr. Roberts' key words are "I believe," and "I want". Well Mr. Roberts, it's not about what you believe or what you want, it's about what the founders intended and wrote and what rights we have. If you don't want the Second Amendment, move out of America. Lots of people have immigrated to America because they wanted the rights we have, you are free to move somewhere that doesn't have the rights you don't want.

Mr. Roberts wants the Second Amendment repealed. Well Mr. Roberts, I want your First Amendment right to free speech repealed and his Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process to be repealed. Mr. Roberts is a dangerous American; one who picks and chooses his rights and would deny others theirs.

Yes, I am being incredibly harsh, but such idiocy needs to be called what it is. This is akin to saying the First Amendment should be scrapped because we have cable news now. Those who are against the right to keep and bear arms for plainly dumb reasons need to be called out. 

-G. C.