LETTERS FROM OUR READERS
06/17/2014 4:09 PM
06/17/2014 4:09 PM
‘People’ given right to bear arms
In response to the letter “Constitution spells out who can bear arms” (Letters, June 13): The writer of the letter asserts that “widespread access of firearms” is a direct violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The writer further states that the Second Amendment “makes it clear that bearing arms is the right of ‘a well regulated militia.’” The writer could not be more wrong. The Constitution as ratified by the states reads, “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.”
Consider this, coming off a revolutionary war in which the “people” formed militias and took up arms against their own tyrannical government, to successfully fight for their freedoms, which is more likely?
Those same “people” wrote the Second Amendment to ensure the right to bear arms to the “people.”
Or, those same “people” wrote the Second Amendment to limit the right to bear arms to the military/government.
Phillip Cuaresma, Turlock
Weighing in on the Constitution
In response to two recent letters in the Opinion page regarding the Constitution: One, I regret to inform the writer who wants a 24th amendment so as to limit spending during elections that there have already been 27 amendments to the Constitution!
Two, another writer has again decided that the only ones who may have firearms are the militia. Again, that has been decided twice since Obama has been president.
The Supreme Court has decided that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms. Period. End of story!
Our Constitution is less than 50 pages and it is written in language that almost any high school student can understand. Even though, in my opinion, our present administration is the most untruthful and corrupt since Woodrow Wilson, our country could still be saved if everyone would just take personal responsibility and have integrity. That applies to both sides.
Now if we want to change the Constitution, there is a thing called a Constitutional Convention that will scare the hell out of everyone in D.C. and even the Supreme Court. Not much chance since civics doesn’t seem to be taught in our schools anymore.
Gene Dias, Modesto
Second Amendment’s guarantees
Regarding Mr. Lloyd Kramer’s letter “Constitution spells out who can bear arms” (Letters, June 13): Really?!?
It appears you may be somewhat misinformed. The Second Amendment actually protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, not just “a well regulated militia.”
Maia Johnson, Turlock
Best to read entire sentence
In response to Lloyd Kramer’s letter “Constitution spells out who can bear arms” (Letters June 13): Looks like you didn’t finish reading the entire sentence that you are trying to quote and have taken what you say out of context.
After the first four words you quoted there is a comma. Then the following nine words refer to the necessity of that militia to maintain a free and safe state also followed by a comma. The next 10 words give the people the right to keep and bear arms. There are three separate thoughts here separated by commas in a continuous sentence. The last four words confirm and protect these rights that are given in the amendment.
The following sentence is complete and is the exact verbiage.
“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.”
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has read it all! Next time you should do the same.
As far as your comments on violence in other countries, that’s a whole different story. I suggest you do some more reading.
Ralph Sexton, Modesto
A militia isn’t the military
One last time. Militias in colonial times were not members of our organized military.
The Constitution uses the word militia because 200 years ago everyone knew there was a huge fundamental difference between the U.S. military and a militia.
I challenge anybody to find an employee of the U.S. government today who says he is in the U.S. militia.
They had just won independence from an unjust government (the British), and wanted to ensure that the new America got a just government by guaranteeing that an armed populace at least had a fighting chance should our leaders get too corrupt. This is why the 2nd is in the Bill of Rights. A list of rights guaranteed to the people, not politicians. And the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled accordingly.
Eric Thompson, Oakdale
Koch influence should be feared
A recent letter “Don’t fear Koch agenda; embrace it” (Letters, June 5) suggested embracing the Koch agenda; then mocked the lack of economic understanding by liberals.
The Kochs’ tentacles reach into virtually every aspect of political, economic and physical life on Earth.
They aim to reshape the global economic system, so as to enrich themselves and their heirs at the expense of most of the other inhabitants on the planet. They represent everything writers of our Constitution feared.
Their “tainted” money winds its insidious path from the Supreme Court, through states, counties and even city campaigns, in the hopes of eliminating any oversight to their profit-making endeavors.
Their lack of transparency, coupled with the 350 million political dollars they’ve spent, should raise the eyebrows of all Americans.
Their money is used against the rights of women, workers and voters, as well as against the poor, disabled, sick and elderly.
They are reinventing science facts, historical events and government functions.
Studies indicate that 2 percent of the Keystone Pipeline’s oil will spill out on its way to Koch refineries on the Gulf Coast.
America gets the pollution, but they get to sell that oil at top dollar to India, Brazil, etc. Regardless of economic wisdom. I’d rather embrace a rattlesnake.
Dean Jepson, Turlock
Obama lunch program is costly
Michelle Obama’s food plan will drastically affect the upcoming 2014-15 school year.
These laws force schools all around America to make lunches meeting all the standards. Some of these are: whole grain, increase in fruits and vegetables, limited amount of sodium, sugar, and/or fat. As a result students believe school lunches are unappetizing, and the food goes to waste. So far, 1 million public schools completely canceled the school lunch system because of the costly outcome.
Marcella Puducay, Ceres
Editor's Choice Videos
Join the Discussion
The Modesto Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.