Home | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Subscriber Services | 928 Media Lab | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Obits | Yellow Pages | TV Listings | Contact Us
The Prescott Daily Courier | Prescott, Arizona

home : opinions : opinions January 25, 2015

2/2/2013 9:55:00 PM
Letter: Second Amendment doesn't mention hunters


I'm happy to hear that President Obama has a "profound respect" for hunting traditions. That's nice, but it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Lawmakers like to say they are not infringing on Second Amendment rights with the proposed "gun control" legislation. They are 100 percent wrong.

The Second Amendment, passed by Congress, states: "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." Does that sound like it was intended for hunters? The words "militia," "security" and "bear arms" do not sound like ones used to describe a hunting trip. Militia is defined as: a fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation.

The Second Amendment is about preserving the security of our country. The guns that lawmakers seek to control are the guns that a "well regulated militia" would need to defend "the security of the state."

You may not like the Second Amendment; that's up to you. You may not like the First Amendment at times either but, we cannot pick and choose the ones we want to "modify" as we see fit at the moment. We do need to read the amendments and understand the meaning of the words. The fundamental foundation of our nation depends on it.

Tom Callahan


Related Stories:
• Letter: Gun freedoms have become ludicrous

    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   UPDATE: One Prescott homicide victim identified (29576 views)

•   Two dead, one critical in attack on Prescott family (28775 views)

•   Suspect in custody in Prescott double homicide (13148 views)

•   New business announced at economic event (3102 views)

•   Who killed Joy Erickson? A family seeks answers after hit-and-run death (2348 views)

Reader Comments

Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013
Article comment by: One of...

@ I Guess

Here's a quote for you:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Article comment by: Thinking Man

@ I guess, I have definitely read what the original framers have written regarding the Second Amendment. Your quotes were certainly apt for a time when a citizen-based militia was used to defend the nation. Today, these quotes lose their relevance because the nation is being defended by a professional military instead of a citizen-based militia. In any event, the opinions of the individual farmers were their own and in many cases differ from what was actually written in the Constitution. While it might be tempting to debate the intent of our founding fathers, in the end, we must not govern by speculation and conjecture, but what is actually in the constitution.

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Article comment by: Peter Brady

@ A. Paula Gize

Do you honestly believe it is the intent of the United States government to disarm its citizens? Do you sincerely think that is what this is all about?

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Article comment by: Paula Gize @ Hooty Hoo the weird dude

Hooty Hoo you are straight up wrong.

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something. We cannot legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it. Weak people, unable to defend themselves, will always be foddering victims to those who can.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found?

In the hands of those with the power, the governments, especially socialist governements who wish to control the populace for their own good. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat to a socialist utopia as envisioned by elitists. This is why the Israelites left Egypt, the magna carta was written, and colonists came to America.

Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their prompt demise.

Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”.

Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was - confiscation of firearms from the people.

Ask any Russian what Stalin's foremost crushing of their will to resist a brutal government, total disarmament of the average Russian.

We all know what Barack Obama wants to do as a priority. We all know why. The questions after that are clear.

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Article comment by: That is Gunnery Sergeant to you

To Ernie Pyle

Nice to see you haven't lost your excellent writing skills since Ie Shima island.

Semper Fi!

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Article comment by: Hooty Hoo

Ill say it again: Anyone who honestly thinks that the purpose of citizens owning arms is to protect them from our government IS A FREAKING WEIRDO. Anyone who clings to that clearly outdated passage in the Bill of Rights is right up there with Charles Manson and Lee Harvey Oswald. Go get on some meds. See someone. Stop drinking so much. And above all, lock up the guns and ammo. Somebody's going to get hurt.

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Article comment by: I Guess

Thinking Man you don't read to much Lets see what the author of the 2nd amendment said a militia is
...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Article comment by: Yosemite Sam

Oh, I'll hunt down game, I'll blast away!
I'll shoot what ere I can!
I'll aim my gun, I never miss
Or my name's not Yosemite Sam!

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Article comment by: Ernie Pyle

@to James weeks. Yep , he actually believes that his peashooter will bring the US military to it's knees. It is easy to think that way when you only have to think one move at a time.He lives in a video game. Further, no one is attempting to take anyone's guns away.
Here are things that the gun crazies don't consider. Who decides who the tyrants are? Many have already claimed that the current leader is one. Should that give them license to attack the federal building and all the ordinary citizens inside( think Oklahoma City) ? With what will you replace an elected democratic republic government with, anarchy? Witness all the problems encountered in the Middle East when trying to replace a much weaker government than ours and what are they trying to replace it with? A democratic republic like ours. Each and every one of our leaders with authority is given their authority by us when we elect them or they report to someone who is elected by us. There is no monarch or king or tsar or tyrant in place in this country, contrary to claims of some in the fringe.
If you have a weak US military, (one not able to easily and successfully defeat an insurrection) you leave yourself vulnerable to other country's governments to occupy this country and enforce their will and consider, they aren't elected by you. We gave up long ago our ability to defeat our government in a gun battle when our forefathers decided to employ a standing Army instead of depending on the citizen militia for our county's defense as referred to in the second amendment. Further, I take comfort in the fact that our military is comprised of our patriotic sons and daughters and are unlikely to attack the law abiding citizens of this country, you know, their parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters. But that's just me. I wouldn't presume to decide for you. I'll just go ahead and enjoy my wonderful life knowing I am blessed to live in the the best country in the world even with its warts. So go ahead and buy up all those legal guns and ammo. Make the gun sellers rich. It will have be of no use to you if you have to battle it out with your elected leaders. Unless you want to turn it on yourself.

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Article comment by: TO: James Weeks

Do you hoenstly think your peashooter and ammo stock pile can protect you if the government wished to use force against you? If so, you must be high. Do you people actually think about this nonsense or just quote what you've heard others say??

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Article comment by: James Weeks

I have don't own several guns just for self defense. I primarily own my guns with a plentiful stock of ammunition to protect me and mine against my own government. The day our guns are taken away this government will become a tyranny and we will be FORCED to do their will with no voice. As long as the people are a threat, the government will only go as far as we decide to let it!

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Article comment by: Thinking Man

@ To~ Thinking Man, you, like all gun extremists, try to use the phrase, “the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed” to justify your argument that the right to have arms is somehow absolute. Yet in some way, you conveniently forget that the preamble to the same amendment states, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” This clause makes it abundantly clear that the framers intended that the people be armed in order to serve in a citizen-based militia. At that point in history, a citizen-based militia was the sole defender of the newly-formed republic. Today our country is protected by professional military organizations (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and National Guard) that have taken take over the role of a citizen-based militia, hence the reason the Second Amendment was written no longer exists. It seems obvious that you have been reading to far too much NRA propaganda.

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Article comment by: J S

The British in 1775 were trying to take away weapons from colonists at Lexington and Concord when the "Shot Heard Around the World" occurred.
Those without guns will never be able to remove guns from those WITH guns.
Perhaps we all need to stop and take a deep breath. Or we can continue to foment rebellion. If rebellion is the only option left, I pity those without weapons.

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Article comment by: to~ Thinking Man

Nice name, Captain Irony!

"A lot of time has passed since the drafting of the Constitution."

Apparently, so much time has passed that some of us no longer can comprehend the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Nice attempt at obfuscation!

Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013
Article comment by: @Anotherdog Kidding?

Fast And Furious makes a case for closing loopholes? Seriously? Agents of a rogue government organization break the law and their oaths to supply guns to drug runners and you think closing civilian "loopholes" will stop it?

There wasn't any loophole with Fast And Furious, the agents just broke the law. Government breaks the law and gets it's citizens killed and you want to deprive us civilians of our rights?

Rogue government agents with guns make me more certain I'll be keeping mine.

Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013
Article comment by: Focus is not focused

All this talk and concern from the government about gun control, has left comprehensive mental health care wayside.NO..obamacare will not do it!
The real issue is to address mental health in this country. Little is/has been done about mental health.
Gun control will work as well as drug control has since the 60's! It will always be out there.
They are focusing in area that will have no impact.
Our country leaves people in the mud whom need health care!

Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013
Article comment by: Another Dog

The Fast and Furious that so often pointed out as a personal failing of President Obama, is really talking out of both sides of the argument. Fast an Furious makes the case for better regulation and closing loopholes. Or, the events of the straw buys are perfectly within the rights of the 2nd Amendment, even if you have knowledge they will be smuggled to Mexico and in the hands of the drug cartels. But you can't have it both ways.

I would point out that the assertions about Fast and Furious rarely have any basis in reality, but are part of the body of conspiracies being sold by right-wing conservative media. Possibly in hopes that if the lie is told often, people will believe it.

Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013
Article comment by: JP Beaumont

Since the 2nd Amendment was so poorly written as to leave this much open to interpretation and debate, I really don't think we should be treating it as sacred gospel.

Clearly it is past time that our country revisit the 2nd Amendment and write a less ambiguous and contemporary version. There are provisions that allow us to do just that.

Posted: Monday, February 04, 2013
Article comment by: Real American DISABLED VET USN Retired

People pick and choose all the time from the bible gOd thingy!!

Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2013
Article comment by: Thinking Man

@ Van Krunk, If we follow your logic, then I should be able to use my right to free speech to defraud or threaten anyone I want. Or perhaps I could start a religion the practices human sacrifice or possibly deifies drug use. Or maybe I could open a news paper that prints things about members of the community whether true or not. If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then I should be able to do any of these things with impunity. After all, it’s my right. Contrary to your viewpoint, all of our rights come with responsibilities and limitations including our right to bear arms

Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2013
Article comment by: Van Krunk

"We're not trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms, we're only trying to take away certain types of arms that no one has any business with anyway.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to free speech, we're only trying to take away certain types of speech that no has any business with anyway.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to religion, we're only trying to take away certain types of religion that no has any business with anyway.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to a free press, we're only trying to take away certain types of free press that no has any business with anyway."

You know? It sounds really damn weird when you try to make these anti-second amendment arguments apply to the first.

Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2013
Article comment by: @ J. Madison

So it is your contention that God, Allah, Huwa, The Almighty...or what ever name your particular flavor of religion calls your "Creator", has ordained that you own a gun?

Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2013
Article comment by: @ More Specifity Required

IMHO, it is somewhat unfortunate that the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is. It is very easy for anti-gun people to twist it to mean something else. The US Constitution was based on the Constitutions of PA and others of the original 13 states. If the 2nd was worded like that of PA, there would be less confusion.

For example:

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2013
Article comment by: We're Doomed

@Bitter, I lived in Kennesaw for a while growing up. That law is more of a political statement than an enforced law. I am sure it would be overturned if anyone was ever prosecuted for not owning a gun. Also I wouldn't hold that backwood redneck hellhole up as an example to support your cause.

Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2013
Article comment by: Funny Isn't it

How all the Dumbocraps that want to disarm the citizens haven't said anything about Fast and Furious Husama little gun running that has got over 400 killed so far. Isn't it also funny not a word about punishing the Criminals. Guess the Dumbocraps figure if they did that it would weaken their voting base

  - Page 1 -  Page 2

Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Last Name:
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.

Advanced Search

HSE - We want to hear from you
Find more about Weather in Prescott, AZ
Click for weather forecast

Quick Links
 •  Submit site feedback or questions

 •  Submit your milestone notice

 •  Submit your letter to the editor

 •  Submit a news tip or story idea

 •  Place a classified ad online now

 •  Browse the Yellow Pages

Find It Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Links
Classifieds | Subscriber Services | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Find Prescott Jobs | e-News | RSS | Site Map | Contact Us
© Copyright 2015 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Daily Courier is the information source for Prescott area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Prescott Newspapers, Inc. Prescott Newspapers Online is a service of Prescott Newspapers Inc. By using the Site, dcourier.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to submit your questions, comments or suggestions. Prescott Newspapers Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.

Software © 1998-2015 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved