E. Walworth: Not overturning Second Amendment

As if any of the current bills being considered at the State House or by Congress would lead to the confiscation of all weapons from law-abiding citizens. On March 24, in his "Outdoors in Maine" column, Paul Reynolds brings up the familiar "slippery slope" argument that an assault weapon ban would be the first step in disarming gun owners.

While the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban (which had numerous loopholes) did not cause a major reduction in shootings, it may have prevented a few and certainly did no harm.

As if the "leftist traitors to the Second Amendment" described in Robert Acheson's letter (April 7) should also ban baseball bats and cars, because "both can kill people." Let's just provide bats and cars instead of M16s to the Marines when they hit the beach or patrol Fallujah.

I don't think that "gun snatchers" have any hope, much less any plan, for overturning the Second Amendment. The second item in the Bill of Rights is constitutional bedrock, but, as Justice Scalia has pointed out, the amendment is not unconditional.

Acheson ends his letter saying that the gun control agenda will "emasculate the public." That comment underscores the notion that guns convey masculinity.

Is one's manhood questionable if he does not own a gun?

What if the majority of the populace could convince their legislators, over the paranoid rants of the gun lobby, to strengthen background checks, limit the size of ammunition magazines, and maybe even exclude some of the weapons of war from the mass market? I think a lot of people would feel a bit safer.

Edward Walworth, 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

MARK GRAVE's picture

Victory for freedom!!!

Angry Obama rips Senate over background check failure

Read more: http://www.kste.com/articles/politics-104707/angry-obama-rips-senate-ove...

MARK GRAVE's picture

assault weapons ban go down in a 60-40 vote Wednesday.

“I will carry on this fight against military-style assault weapons, and I ask of the American people that they continue to pressure their elected officials to take action. It’s long overdue that we take serious steps to remove these dangerous firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines from society.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2013/04/17/13349/dianne-feinstein-s-a...

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Edward

Edward please list a place where you found a legal definition of an assault weapon. I have been trying in vain and cannot find a legal defination .

MARK GRAVE's picture

Assault-style weapon - a gun

Assault-style weapon - a gun that goes bang, bang, and looks scarey - Dianne F..

MARK GRAVE's picture

It varies, but in the end it

It varies, but in the end it means assault weapons or al[l]l weapons.

MARK GRAVE's picture

That last part should be all

That last part should be all weapons...

Andrew Jones's picture

There are no weapons of war

There are no weapons of war on the market.

MARK GRAVE's picture

"I think a lot of people

"I think a lot of people would feel a bit safer."

False sense of security........

Zack Lenhert's picture

...so is keeping a gun in the

...so is keeping a gun in the household.

MARK GRAVE's picture

In some cases yes, in some

In some cases yes, in some cases no. Remember, play by the numbers. Statistics show that some people successfully use a household weapon to defend themselves. Likewise, there are instances when the outcome is not favorable for the victim.

The takeaway here should be that people have the freedom to try or not try to defend their ground. The issue is freedom. We all have a god given right to fight for survival regardless the outcome. The gun is the great equalizer.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Yea, in all historical cases

Yea, in all historical cases where governments have ban gun, registration is always the first step.

It is only a matter of time. New York legislature recently discussed confiscating assault-weapons. As soon as a government entity thinks it can get away with such action, it will.

Just listen for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWkBB7kcg00

This government routinely chooses which laws to enforce, take immigration law for example. What makes you think it cannot do the same with the Constitution?

Thinking that the senate bill will placate the anti-gun crowd is the same as falling into the same fallacy thinking same-sex marriage supporters will be placated with domestic partnerships.

Readers, let’s not be hoodwinked by the likes of Edward. We are in a full out battle to save the second amendment. Don’t fall into the incrementalism trap. Stop them now.

Vote for politicians who value the Constitution – all of it. Reject the snake oil that Edward and other's like him are selling.

Zack Lenhert's picture

"We are in a full out battle

"We are in a full out battle to save the second amendment. Don’t fall into the incrementalism trap. Stop them now."

Ah... the politics of fear and emotion on full display.

Regarding confiscations, do you have anything besides the musings of a few legislators? ...something that actually got proposed and voted on?

MARK GRAVE's picture

Dianne does say she did not

Dianne does say she did not have 51 votes, so to not have 52 votes, the legislation was voted on.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Which legislation was that?

Which legislation was that? Who voted on it?

MARK GRAVE's picture

We are glad the Senate voted

We are glad the Senate voted for freedom - gun ban goes down, Dianne Feinstein's crazy rant.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Another nonsense piece

"Vote for politicians who value the Constitution – all of it. Reject the snake oil that Edward and other's like him are selling." The Supreme Court has decided what the Constitution means regarding gun rights. Since the NRA and gun rights advocates oppose the Supreme Court decision, they are opposed to the Constitution. This is the hypocrisy. Gun rights supporters support only the parts of the Constitution which if read out of context seem to support their views. The oppose everything else.
The last government that confiscated privately owned firearms in the Continental US, the British Government, did so with out any registration and when they tried it started an armed insurrection. That's why we have a 2nd Amendment. And that's why no government in 230 years has proposed any confiscation of firearms and none in the next 230 years will either.
The author has written a valuable and honest letter.

MARK GRAVE's picture

In fact, both local and

In fact, both local and federal politicians have proposed gun confiscation:

Just listen for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWkBB7kcg00

It will happen if the public rolls over and plays dead. Just because there are laws on the books does not mean that they will be enforced. Like I said earlier, look at our immigration laws that the federal government ignores frequently.

The crux is that if no one challenges government, our freedoms keep eroding as the government or popular opening see fit.
The Constitution is a document that limits government.

Lastly, you just need to look outside the US to see that gun registration is followed by confiscation.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Another meaningless phrase rather than argument

"The Constitution is a document that limits government. Of course and so what. Only a Constitution that says "the governmnt has all powers." doesn't limit government. Our Constitution stripped States of power specifically over the economy and military affairs because States had proven too easily swayed by local special interests, farmers, taxpayer, debtors, merchants. The genius of the Consttuton is Madison's observation that as the size of a Republican grows the influence of special local interests diminishes.
I listened to your youtube and there is nothing there about gun confiscation. There are a whole lot of assumptions, conclusions unsupported by the facts, and not a specific proposal much less legislation. I bet I could find 60 wingnuts who would demonstrate for smaller government in Augusta just as eaily as you can find 60 leftist wingnuts who fantazise about all the guns in American magically disappearing over night. Doesn't make either representative of the people or for that matter credible..

MARK GRAVE's picture

Dear Reader: Jonathan

Dear Reader:

Jonathan Albrecht is outright lying to us. It is very clear what Dianne Feinstein is saying. She says that she would outright ban and confiscate guns if see had the votes in the Senate.

Here it is right out of the horse’s mouth. How can you deny what Feinstein says on video?

Keep on saying that no politician wants to confiscate guns. The proof to the contrary is self evident.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/dianne-feinstein-caught-lying-about-he...

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

I don't lie well most of the time and certainly not if its

important.
Mr. Gravel is using a stated propaganda technique. Using a biased website which misrepresents, draws unfounded conclusions, and adds 2 and 2 and comes up with five, Mr. Gravel then says that anyone who disagrees with these conclusions and misrepresentations is lying. And the Feinstein represents all democrats. Old trick, well developed at Fox News.
I'm certain that if you dug into the wish list of all democrats everywhere you would come up with 20 maybe more percent who would fantasize about a country without firearms. Hell, there's a little eight-year old boy killed in Boston who caulked "PEACE" in front of his house and died Monday in Boston who might have been one of them someday. Its not a wish I'd make but I can understand those that would. I do wish for a lot of things like winning megabucks.
But that's wholely and completely different from a politician supporting the confiscation of firearms. Confiscation means the taking of firearms without due process of law and without compensation and in contradiction of the 2nd Amendment. No democrat has made any such proposal (even Feinstein's wish does not meet this criteria). No democrat will make such a proposal if gun owners will come up with rational, practical solutions to violence in America. As long as they don't (and many do but you are known by your friends as long as gun rights groups stand in the door way and say "no way") they will be accessories to all future mass shootings.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Watch the video, watch the

Watch the video, watch the speaker (Dianne F.) and listen to the words. That is all you need to do regardless of the source. That is why we say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Can you guarantee its not edited

I seemed to rememeber ACORN videos that were edited to misrpresent the parties involved. And a speach in front of the NAACP convention which was edited to mean exact the opposite of what the speaker said. The Rightwing has a long history of producing false and misleading pictures going back to Nixon's Senate run.
And I did notice you didn't respond to my comment; you just ignored i.

MARK GRAVE's picture

If you want to make that

If you want to make that claim, show your proof. Also, politial wishfull thinking will become reality with no opposition.

Advertisement

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

I'm interested in ...