K. Kuck: Bring the insanity to an end

Setting foot on American soil for the first time in 1958, becoming an American citizen, to be privileged to live in this great and exceptional country — all of that I consider the happiest events and times in my life.

But there is one issue I never fully understood and that is the apparent preoccupation of many of my fellow Americans (as opposed to the frontiersmen) with guns, firearms and assault weapons and the whole gun culture that goes with it.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution, made "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" conditional on "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..." That important part of the Second Amendment is seldom brought up during heated arguments about gun control and regulations.

It is estimated that 48,000 Americans are killed every year by "illegal" guns. Imagine, for a moment, the reaction if someone would stipulate that 48,000 American men, women and children would have to be executed every year in order to maintain easy access to firearms for most of the American people.

After the many recurring, horrifying and appalling massacres of men, women and children, President Barack Obama told the people: "These tragedies must end. We can't tolerate this anymore."

I hope that this time the nightmare and insanity can be brought to an end.

Klaus Kuck, Lewiston

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Bob Stone's picture

Spengler

I wonder how many gun laws Spengler violated in Webster, NY? Whackos and crooks will not be deterred if they want to obtain a firearm.

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

From earlier letters, Dr. Kuck, ...

... you were (correct me where I go wrong) a child or teenager in Nazi Germany when you and your family emigrated. I firmly believe that no one commenting here, myself included, can imagine the insanity of that time and place.

From my readings on that period, a recurring theme was that most Jews there were loyal German citizens and patriots, who believed their government, whoever led it, had their best interests at heart.

There was also a recurring analysis that proposed: If most Jews had answered the 2am knock on the door with a loaded gun, the Holocaust would never have happened. As the Swiss know well, the best citizen is one who is armed and prepared to defend, not only his country, but also his rights as an individual.

And there is the recurring old saying: He who ignores history is condemned to repeat it.

Bob Woodbury's picture

Amen.

Well said.

Amedeo Lauria's picture

Read on Mr. Kluck...

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."

The militia in those days were your friends and neighbors, they got it right even for today. Read it till the end of the sentence for goodness sake, it's pretty clear the intent!

THE RIGHT OF "THE PEOPLE"...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Doesn't sound conditional to me!

Not a good idea to cherry pick when it comes to reading our foundational document.

Be glad you came to this country, where, in most places, you can sleep at night without fear.

AL PELLETIER's picture

A well regulated militia?

That was back then, today we have no need for a militia, we have a military second to none. A military so well equipped, trained and armed ,that if ordered, could establish marshal law and rule America as Hitler did Germany and none of you with your AR-15's AK-47's and Glocks could stop it. But our founders established a set of checks and balances to ensure this could never happen. I simply see the Second Amendment, as it was written, to be obsolete.
Assault weapons, semi automatic weapons, easily concealed weapons are the weapons of choice for those who inflict so much pain and suffering. These are the weapons that should only be in the hands of trained law enforcement and military personal.
I'd be the first to go down kicking and screaming if the government tried to take my hunting rifle away from me, but the rifle I own is the last weapon of choice a mass killer would want in his arsenal. They want weapons that can spit out as much lead as possible in the shortest amount of time possible with only one thought in mind--killing people.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

WELL REGULATED!

Not a good idea to cherry pick.

Ed McCaffrey's picture

I know that I'm going to be beating a dead horse..

but how many of you gun control types realize that taking guns away from RESPONSIBLE citizens leaves only outlaws and law enforcement with guns? Furthermore, how many of you realize that the police have no constitutional obligation to protect individual citizens? The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the individual is responsible for his own protection and that the police are responsible for the protection of society as a whole. read the story http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
What this means is that the police are required to protect us from people who would or could potentially cause harm to more than one person, such as drunk drivers, bombers, mass killers, rapists, etc but they are not obligated to protect a person in his home. Many of you ask "where were the police when a woman is killed by a man who she had a court order against?" Answer, IT'S NOT THEIR JOB!
The law is supposed to discourage the bad guy from committing wrongful acts, but we all know how well criminals and the insane follow the law. So for those of you who don't like guns, you'd better hope that your neighbor does the next time someone breaks into your home and you're facing a criminal with a gun and all you have to protect you are the local police and the comforting thought of "But guns are illegal, this guy shouldn't have one!"

Bob Woodbury's picture

Responsible citizens...

...may keep their guns. I hope you get a 285-pound buck with a huge rack. I hope you have the experience of walking into a covert with a flight of woodcock in it. An incredible experience. It's those guns that were designed for, engineered for and built for killing people. You need that gun to target shoot or as a hunting rifle? Excuse me! How many round do you need to take down that buck? As far as I know, five round is legal. Fifty rounds if not. Firing 100 rounds at a target? That's not target shooting for accuracy. That obliterating the target. Admit it. Those are lame excuses and just don't fly any more. It's not guns that need to be regulated. It's the killing machines, the machine capable of putting 11 rounds in a six-year-old body. ONE type of weapon. Just one. To protect our firemen. To protect our children. To protect our college students. One type of weapon. You speak of folks who want this as reacting emotionally and illogically. And how would you describe your reaction to regulating this one weapon?

Ed McCaffrey's picture

What they are trying to ban

are not assault weapons. What they want to ban is anything that LOOKS like an assault weapon. A 9mm hand gun that anyone can buy, anywhere, fires just as quickly as any of the so-called assault weapons that they are trying to ban. 1 round for every pull of the trigger. It's the looks that are scary, not the weapon. You can buy semi- auto 12 gauge shotguns right now for hunting purposes, that when loaded with buckshot, make a far more devastating weapon than anything you can conceive.
Automatic weapons have been banned in the United States since the 1930's. All you do by banning semi- auto assault type weapons is change the way they look. Sort of like the government banning the sale of Ferrari's in the country because they are faster than police cars. They banned the model, but not the engine that makes it go, that's still legal. The car that it's in looks slow, so it's ok.
Get some sort of grip on reality, dude. Banning the weapons won't take them off the street, it will just send them underground. It won't prevent the sale of them, because even the feds can't stop the sale of privately owned weapons that were purchased pre-ban.
The answer to the problem is to enforce the myriad laws that are already out there. Make the LAW do the JOB that they were payed to do. Stop messing with law abiding citizens and actually go after the mental cases and criminals, but no, that would require effort. Going after the ones who are responsible is a lot easier than actually chasing down the wrongdoers. The law abiding people aren't hiding, are they?
Also, in case you missed the earlier part, don't expect the cops to defend you if you get in trouble. It's not their job (see above reference). You're on your own, according to the LAW.
\

Bob Woodbury's picture

I've heard...

...all these excuses before. They don't work anymore. And by the way, you say: "What they want to ban...". Who are they?

Ed McCaffrey's picture

Do you even listen, really listen, to what you hear??

The left and right wing (Republicans and Democrats, in both houses of Congress) have both decided that the best way to approach the problem of gun violence in this country is to outlaw the tool, not the user. The tool cannot get itself out of the cabinet or closet and kill unless it is wielded by some whack job who shouldn't have been in possession of the tool to begin with. Any idiot with a sword can kill just as many people as someone with a gun because the general public is just as defenseless against anyone with any kind of weapon.
I can hear your argument now, "I can run away from a sword!!" Sure you can, but somebody slower than you, who you left behind, would be dead instead of you. Feel better now??? (Survival of the fittest , maybe? Jerk.)
Bombs, the same kind that blew up in Oklahoma, can be built from fertilizer and diesel fuel. They are less obtrusive than guns and kill more people, not to mention the property destruction they cause. Do we outlaw Shit and Gas too??? Where do we go next???
Let's outlaw any kind of Bat, knife, household chemical, any possible allergen (peanuts, shellfish, berries), automobiles, prescription drugs, ANYTHING that can possibly be used to kill another human being based simply on the fact that mentally corrupt people might use those items to kill someone else.
While we're at it, let's legislate the use of Cars and motorcycles too.. why not? You can kill or be killed in one of those as well, right? Let's outlaw beer and alcohol, and prescription drugs too. Every one of the things that I mentioned above can be used in either responsible or irresponsible ways. It's not up to the government to control the tool or substance, it's up to them to control the user.
You are one of those people who depends on your government to defend you, personally. You're a fool. You are responsible for your own personal defense. If you count on the government or the police in a time of need, I feel sorry for you...

AL PELLETIER's picture

No Ed, don't outlaw everything

Just tools like the ones that can kill 26 people in less then 10 minutes. And it took just minutes for that nut to shoot his mother, grab three guns and head off to his killing field. The bomb in the Oklahoma blast took weeks of planning and gathering of the items needed to make a bomb. Today venders of such products are aware of this kind of explosive device and report any suspected activity that may include bomb making. In other words, the tools that can create a bomb of such destruction are regulated.
If some wacko goes to a gun show and buys an assault weapon, who's to know what his intentions are?

MARK GRAVE's picture

In an emotional response, it

In an emotional response, it is easier to attack the instrument than the individual. I personally think this is a coping mechanism to make some people feel secure in that they are doing something to solve the problem, all while the underlying problem still exist.

Bob Woodbury's picture

I attack the act.

I don't make excuses for either the instrument or the individual. Can't do anything about the individual. Can control the instrument. And will.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Yea, that is why your

Yea, that is why your solution will fail; the world is a symphony full of instruments.

Just ask yourself when has prohibition on anything succeeded. Good luck Mr. Emotion.

Bob Woodbury's picture

And you're saying...

...you're NOT being emotional? Wanna buy a bridge?

Bob Woodbury's picture

PS

I served my country for six years in the United States Navy on destroyers in the North Atlantic. I have volunteered for several years, helping our returning vets at Togus. And for that, you call me a fool.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

No one called you a fool.

No one called you a fool.

Bob Woodbury's picture

And I quote...

"You are one of those people who depends on your government to defend you, personally. You're a fool. You are responsible for your own personal defense. If you count on the government or the police in a time of need, I feel sorry for you..."

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I stand corrected. Your

I stand corrected. Your response was taken to be in reply to Mr. Gravel's comment.

MARK GRAVE's picture

If the glass slippery

If the glass slippery fits.....

Bob Woodbury's picture

It works.

When you have nothing to say, call other people names.

MARK GRAVE's picture

I think I said my piece

I think I said my piece clearly. I happen to agree with Ed.

Ed McCaffrey's picture

I served as well... Navy

Bluenose, and Shellback. I served my country to keep those rights given to us by the CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHTS. The oath we swore was to the Constitution of the United States, not to the president, not to congress. I believe in my COUNTRY. it doesn't mean I believe in my government or its policies.
We have a president and a congress that, for the first time in history, most of them have never served in the military, and you, a service man, is willing to accept their view on how the country and it's people should be defended? You're willing to accept their view that a docile, domesticated public is better than an armed public that is willing to defend this country against any and ALL comers, whether it be their own government or not?
Maybe I'm too old (but I see you are too), but I was taught ,in Boot Camp Training, that the 2nd amendment was put in place to protect us from threats both domestic and foreign. The current government taking away my rights is a domestic threat.
You may look at it any way you wish, but if you are a true defender of the Constitution, not the government, then you have no choice but to see it my way.(re- read your oath of service in case you've forgotten it. I haven't).

Bob Woodbury's picture

You need...

...to move to Idaho.

Bob Woodbury's picture

I wonder...

...how many of those kids lying in a pool of their own blood with multiple bullet holes in them (bullets, not knife of sword wounds, not from a bomb blast, not from household chemicals, or allergens, or cars, boats or trains, or beer and alcohol, or prescription drugs - BULLETS) were Republicans or Democrats, left or right whackos. I think it was the same at Virginia Tech. As I recall, bullets had something to do with Columbine, where armed guards were present. And I think they found bullet holes in that movie theater. I don't recall knife or sword wounds, a bomb blast, household chemicals, allergens, cars, boats or trains, beer or alcohol or prescription drugs being used in any of those incidents. Unlike you, I am not putting ALL the blame on someone with a mental problem, though that needs to be addressed as well. And if they were to be treated properly, you would be the first to rant about the cost. The cost, at the moment, is lives, being taken by killing machines. Not guns used for hunting and target practice - weapons designed, engineered and built as killing machines. Since many of our returning veterans are becoming law enforcement agents, you bet I'll count on them in time of need. Paranoid jerk. Happy New Year.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Mr.Kuck,

I always enjoy reading your common sense comments.
There are those out there who still just don't get it and will come back at you with their old stand by, that dumb cliche' about guns and people. The time for this twisted mentality has got to come to an end.
We can't stop mentally disturbed people from being born. We can't predict when some one will snap and go on a killing rampage. We can't stop it with armed security guards (didn't work for Kennedy, Reagan and Columbine). We can't stop it with new security systems, they'll just shoot their way in (Newtown).
All these atrocities were committed with one common denominator---Guns! Something we not only have the ability to control, it is something we have the moral responsibility to control. The time has come for Americans to take pride in this country, as you have Mr. Kuck. God Bless You.

Amedeo Lauria's picture

Ok...then let's ban cars...using that same line of thinking...

...the reality is cars don't kill people, people who text, talk on their cell phone, participate in high speed escapes from the police, try to run over their spouses, and drive drunk do.

Let's address the REAL issues, get rid of the political correctness, get your hands off our US Constitution and let's deal with the real causes.

Oh but that is too complex to deal with...for most folks out there.

I DO get IT!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The problem with many

The problem with many liberals is that they have a dangerously high opinion of their opinions.

Bob Woodbury's picture

No.

You don't.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...