Springville Journal letter: Consider the Constitutionís Second Amendment
Tuesday April 23, 2013 | By:Timothy Swedenhjelm |
After reading the articles on the Second Amendment and then the misguided responses by Larry Schultz and Herb Bertram, I am compelled to respond to their statements.
This amendment was written, not only for the well-regulated militia, which means an organization of armed private citizens, but also the right of private citizens to own, keep and maintain those arms, in their homes, to protect themselves from all threats, foreign and domestic.
And, yes, that does mean the government, if our government becomes a threat to the people of this nation. The Supreme Court of the United States of America recently voted and reaffirmed this.
It says nothing of hunting, collecting or type of weapon, as the core of the amendment. Anybody not in denial knows that other countries have dumped many of their criminals into our nation, i.e., Cuba, Mexico, China and many others.
Just because they came here doesnít mean they gave up their way of life, which is crime. Could anyone even imagine if we didnít have the Second Amendment and couldnít protect ourselves. We would be totally defenseless.
For guys like Larry and Herb to tell me what they think I need to protect myself, after hearing their point of view, is like having a baker trying to tell my doctor how to do surgery. I do understand that some people have little to protect or defend and their needs are different than those of us that have a lot to love, defend and protect.
Yes, Gary Ebert is the president of a beautiful club, but itís Larry and Herb that are incorrect in their facts. The cheap putdown of Kevin Ploetz, who was trying to give people valid history, only shows the readers of who really needs a history lesson.
The false statement that guns in the home are more likely to kill family members was debunked, years ago, and proven wrong by FBI and many other sources. The fact that more people are killed with hammers than with guns only goes to prove these two guys wrong.
When people use poor viewpoints, while losing their side of a civil conversation, it seems childish, at best, and only proves that their point is weak and unfounded. My point here is that people that really donít know the issues fully should not try to get into debates that are clearly way over their heads. The amount of ammo or magazine size I need is determined by the threat.
Article 35 of the New York State Penal Code (The Right to Use of Force and Deadly Force), clearly covers this and only follows the Second Amendmentís right to bear arms. If you want to live unarmed and helpless to defend yourself, fine; nobody wants to make you.
If I have made the choice to be armed and trained to protect and defend myself, thatís my business and you should respect that. Our U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court clearly states that.