Steve,

I would like to nominate you for president of the local chapter of NRA, if there is such a thing. You really just couldn't have said it better. People don't realize this, but the VERY FIRST thing Hitler did when he came into power was take the guns away from the citizens. If we enforce gun control, it is only going to cause more crimes. People will be buying them off the black market and then there will be no 7 day waiting period to see if a buyer is a repeat offender, a murderer, what have you. The American public should be screaming about gun control, but not in the way they are.

Right on Steve! I have always thought that the editors of this paper should have to sign their work. Aside from not having the nerve to sign it, I imagine they don’t to protect themselves from a lot of backlash flak. When you write anonymous you can say a lot whether it is stupid or otherwise.

Why do you people not understand that no one wants to take all our guns. Assault weapons need to be banned. No one needs more fire power than the police!

If we ever have mandatory gun regististration in this country, we all know the next step; government knocking on the door and demanding all of your weapons. It has happened many times around the world. As for me, like the old saying, you can have mine when you pry it from my cold dead hand.

First: Editorials are not signed, but they express the opinion of the newspaper's editorial board. This is standard practice throughout the world. If you want to know exactly whose opinion an editorial expresses, it conveys the opinion of the editorial board (and locally it has the express consent of the publisher). In other words: It is the newspaper's collective opinion. Hold the editorial board accountable for that opinion. When you see the word "editorial" above it, it is the same as the signature of the publisher. It has nothing to do with lack of "courage" or "nerve". Conversely, if letter writers were not required to sign their letters, there would be no way to verify the writer's actual identity, nor would there be accountability.

Second: Just because someone believes the words "A well regulated Militia ..." in the Second Amendment should not be ignored does not make him a coward, nor does it make him a "liberal". It just means he values the entire amendment rather than picking and choosing as fits his wishes.

Third: A baseball bat has a primary function (to hit a baseball) in addition to its possible use as a weapon. What is the primary function of a gun?

Finally I would ask Mr. Escue whether he believes every private citizen should be entitled to own a nuclear weapon. The Second Amendment refers to the right to bear "arms". Nuclear weapons are arms, as are handguns and assault weapons. The amendment does not differentiate. If we use some common sense and rule out nuclear arms, then we must draw a line somewhere. Where do we draw that line? I am all in favor of the right of every law-abiding citizen to own a gun, but I also see no harm in registering either the weapon or the owner. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this and it can be quite helpful to law enforcement in the investigation of crime.

The "all-or-nothing" philosophy of the NRA is not good for gun-ownership rights. When folks demand such extreme, unmitigated rights without regard to common sense or safety, they actually harm their case rather than help it. Until fanatical rhetoric is removed from the conversation, our gun-ownership rights will always be in peril.

Bubba would like to have an automatic weapon to protect himself from people like Steve. Bubba unlike most people has a problem with vision and behavior. However, he has never been it trouble so he can get any weapon he wishes. I love no control on anything. Oh, ain't that what is wrong with economy right now? Yep.

Bubba love his guns. Is that a deer?

Cars kill as many or more people than guns do. Yet, you do not here about a ban on cars. You know why? That is because it is the person driving the car that is the real danger, not the car. For some reason, this same logic escapes the liberal groups that want to ban firearms. They forget, or never even knew, that the reason our Founding Fathers gave the citizens the right to bear arms was just not to protect themselves from criminals, but also to keep the government in check. I don't mean in some type of Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidian way either. If they would take the time to see how some of the most evil dictators, such as Hitler and Hussien, came to power, they will find that one of the first things those men did was take away the rights of gun ownership for all citizens. How can a democratic citizenship protect itself from a wannabe ruthless dictator if he has all the guns and the citizens have none?

In communities where gun ownership is legal and encouraged by law enforcement, crime statistics drop dramatically. Criminals are aware that they are risking their lives when they burglarize a home, rob a citizen or assault someone. We need legal, responsible gun ownership in the USA. We also need educational programs to teach people, especially young people, how to handle guns. The NRA provides such instruction, and it makes an enormous difference in the behavior of gun owners. I would hate to be at the mercy of some homicidal thug who breaks into my home. And I agree with Craig, who says that the government must not be allowed to disarm citizens. This is surely the first step toward dictatorship. Our right to bear arms is as necessary to our survival as our right to free speech.

Mary From Decatur...the main problem with your argument about " Assault weapons " is that the liberal government gets to define what an assualt rifle is. Most definitions that I have seen in legislation is any semi automatic rifle...some have designations as to how many shells but some don't. That means my deer rifle, my squirrel rifle and my target rifle are all "Assault weapons " I have several rifles and handguns and have taught my son's to shoot and gun safety. We enjoy going out on a Saturday afternoon and shooting for a couple of hours, to us it is a family activity. My son's and I also hunt...we provide meat for our family and for a couple of elderly families that really need it. I have to agree with Steve if we would move away from a politically correct feel good nation and enforce our current laws we would not have the problems that we have with criminals currently. I will never give my guns up willingly and that includes my Assault weapons!

Sam

Guys, this world we live in now is much different from the world the founding fathers lived in. The people who gave us these freedoms never considered Mexican drug wars or the gang problems we have now. We say we want a better more peaceful world- we have to do something to help bring that about. I also have many guns at my house and my husband hunts as will my child will. I believe the NRA is also using scare tactics to upset people, honest people who could own an assualt weapon, but sometimes we must sacrifice a litttle for the good of all.

I do believe in our rights to own guns, and strongly support it. Too bad we can't take them from neighbors who decide to pull loaded guns in inappropriate situations. It is the idiots like this that will cause the harm!!! Cowards shouldn't be allowed to own guns. It is irresponsible gun ownership that will ruin it for the rest of us.

Craig: Yes, the people have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from criminals and the government. But putting some restictions on those rights is only common sense.

Take your automobile analogy, for example (faulty as it may be: Cars have a primary purpose other than to kill). We require people to take a test and show some aptitude in their use before giving them a license. We also demand by law that they register their vehicle and not operate a car when they have been drinking, and require them to stay on their side of the road, stop at red lights, etc. This is so that these tools may be used safely. Similarly, laws that require us to register our weapons and prohibit gun-ownership by convicted felons, for example, are designed to keep us all safe.

Bob:

I absolutely love your interpretation of the constitution! I'm betting you have a law degree. Wait you’re a judge? No? I can't imagine why not! That interpretation of the constitution allows only a select group of people to possess firearms, not the ordinary citizens for protection from bad guys, and guess what else? Their own government. Remember the whole war for independence from Britain thing? In my "crazy right-wing" opinion, citizens should be able to arm themselves with the same defenses our military possesses. That means nuclear war heads, automatic “assault” rifles (which is about as ridiculous as a crime being called a “hate” crime; aren’t all firearms used for assault? All crimes have a motivated by hate ?) and bullet-proof vests (which are outlawed for citizens but pretty much mandatory for police. Unfair advantage, anyone?) I agree with one point you made. Common sense is needed when reading the Second Amendment. I'm afraid that may prove a characteristic too much for The Daily.

This lady says it about as well as it can be stated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YpogEUCDI

Gun ownership is not necessarily a right required to protect ourselves from thugs but from THE GOVERNMENT. Regardless, it's a RIGHT, not a privilege. It is specifically spelled out in plain language in the governing legal document for this nation, the U. S. Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

RM

Not to change the subject, but, why has this got so much attention when the REALLY SCARY thing is, changing the tax code to target a select group. AIG employees. This action is the most frieghting thing any one has done in our nations history!!!!!!!!

Rocket Man: How convenient of you to leave out part of the Second Amendment. You know, the part about "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Guess it wouldn't fit your philosophy to have the word "regulated" in there. Specifically spelled out in plain language.

T.L.: I wrote "I am all in favor of the right of every law-abiding citizen to own a gun, but I also see no harm in registering either the weapon or the owner. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this and it can be quite helpful to law enforcement in the investigation of crime." How does that allow "only a select group of people to possess firearms, not the ordinary citizens for protection from bad guys," as you claim? You either could not comprehend my point or deliberately misrepresented it. Since only those on the losing end of a discussion resort to lies and distortion, I will assume you failed to understand what you read.

Registering firearms? Do we register knives? Or brass knuckles? Or any other object that can be used as a weapon? Why does there have to be some overarching authority to oversee how law-abiding individuals protect themselves? As long as they aren't harming people with their firearms without warrant and using them for self defense, why does the government need to be involved? Why must the government assume the worse from law-abiding citizens? It just comes down to a basic philosophical difference of opinion I suppose. I don't think anyone, not a government, not an organization, no one, should stand in between an individual and their right to protect him or her self from harm, and to do it anonymously without intervention. Let’s register condoms next to see who is and isn’t using them. That’s a great idea!

Actually, brass knuckles are illegal in several states (although not Alabama, as far as I can tell).

"And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stevens Smith in 1787

Also FYI, brass knuckles are defined as a "deadly weapon" in 13A-1-2(7) and are specifically prohibited for concealed carry in 13A-11-53 in the Alabama Code.

Do we register automobiles? Marriage licenses? voters? None of those registrations "stands between and individual and" his or her right (or privilege) to drive, get married or cast a ballot. Nor does registering a gun stand between an individual and his right to defend himself. On the other hand, it does provide a useful tool to track down those who misuse their weapons -- and you can't deny there are people who misuse them. "Do we register knives?" No. They have a primary purpose other than to kill. "Brass knuckles?" No. They are illegal to carry because they have only one purpose: to cause harm to another. "Any other object that can be used as a weapon?" Depends on if that is the primary use of the object. One can use an ice cube to kill. It would be ludicrous to register ice cubes, because they are used mostly (in my house at least) to cool drinks. That would be an absurd suggestion, and actually gets me back to my primary point: The NRA, gun lobby and many gun owners have become so paranoid that they take an "all or nothing" approach to "regulating" (as in the Second Amendment) the ownership and use of weapons. A little common sense would go a long way. (BTW, last time I looked, condoms' primary purpose was NOT to harm or kill).

When the Constitution was first drafted the rights secured by the first 10 Amendments were so widely accepted that many of the Framers considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary. Yet the Anti-Federalists, in their wisdom, insisted on a Bill of Rights because they feared that fundamental tenets of individual liberty might later be deemed inconvenient, impractical, or even dangerous. Fortunately for us, these Amendments were ratified. Our system is a government by the consent of the governed. All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. And whenever a government is found to be inadequate or contrary to these purposes, the people have an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it. The 2nd Amendment reflects the same natural rights-based sentiment that the other nine contain for the purpose of expressly enumerating some of our individual liberties as a check against government tyranny. The problem with registering firearms and/or owners of firearms is that it lets the fox guard the hen house. Imagine a right intended- in part -as a deterrent to oppressive government that can be exercised only when, where, and in the manner that the government directs. That doesn't make much sense to me and it runs afoul to the spirit of the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. So are the rights to free speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Does anyone feel comfortable with the government picking and choosing who, what, when, where these rights are to be exercised? Allowing the government to monitor individuals exercising these fundamental rights is slippery slope towards serfdom.

Pam, you and Bob need to get together and have a long, happy conversation.

Bob, I'm writing separately to address some of your earlier comments. You chastised Rocket Man above: "How convenient of you to leave out part of the Second Amendment. You know, the part about "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Guess it wouldn't fit your philosophy to have the word "regulated" in there. Specifically spelled out in plain language." The part he quoted is deemed to be the operative clause and is controlling to the amendment's interpretation. The clause you focus your argument on is the prefatory clause. Binding Supreme Court precedent deems this clause to comport with the meaning of the operative clause based on historical evidence that the original public meaning of the clause was that a well-regulated citizen militia "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" was necessary for the security of a free state. The Heller opinion specifically spells this out in plain language if you're interested.

Next, you accused T.L. of not comprehending or deliberately misrepresenting your statement that: "I am all in favor of the right of every law-abiding citizen to own a gun, but I also see no harm in registering either the weapon or the owner. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this and it can be quite helpful to law enforcement in the investigation of crime." And "Nor does registering a gun stand between an individual and his right to defend himself. On the other hand, it does provide a useful tool to track down those who misuse their weapons -- and you can't deny there are people who misuse them." The right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-defense, and yes, militia service is fundamental to our ordered system of liberty. Apply the logic you use to our other fundamental rights and liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Take the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment for example; it's no leap of logic to say "I'm all in favor of right of every law-abiding citizen to freely voice his opinion, but I also see no harm in the gov't monitoring all private communications. After all, law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this and it can be quite helpful to law enforcement in the investigation of crime." And "Nor does monitoring speech stand between an individual and his right to freely express his ideas and opinions. On the other hand, it does provide a useful tool to track down those who misuse free speech -- and you can't deny there are people who misuse it." But do you not see how even the presence of the government being passively involved in the exercise of a fundamental right produces a chilling affect on it? Would you feel comfortable to say what you wanted to if you knew that every phone call or email you were a party to was being listened to or viewed by the government? One of the consequences of Liberty is the fact that we are not ensured safety from all dangers. Free people must encounter dangerous ideas, dangerous situations and dangerous people. In this country we believe that all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which they cannot divest. These rights existed before government and they cannot be infringed by government. Sure some speech, and religion, and weapons are dangerous. But to restrict any of it is to restrict all of it. The free market of ideas and the basic human dignity to protect your family, property, and life from all encroachments public and private is essential to a free society. By advocating the restriction of fundamental human liberty in the name of security you are tacitly sanctioning tyranny and oppression. Please Bob before you launch another snarky tirade against other commenters try to examine your logic. Start by examining the logical conclusion of basing regulation of any object on it's "primary use." Are also in favor of registering all bows and arrows, boomerangs, and VW Beetles? In conclusion, when it comes to natural, fundamental human rights and liberties the "all or nothing approach" is the only way to go.

1) I am familiar with the Court's opinions regarding the Second Amendment, including the disingenuous "preferatory" vs. "controlling" clause interpretation which, I believe, was the Court's only way to say "we're going to ignore the part about regulation."

2) "Would you feel comfortable to say what you wanted to if you knew that every phone call or email you were a party to was being listened to or viewed by the government?" Yes, I would. Because I do not having anything to hide from the government. However, I believe the Fourth Amendment pretty much protects us from this kind of government snooping (although you might get an argument from Alberto Gonzales, GW Bush and Dick Cheney). As to your broader point about a slippery slope when you "restirct human liberty in the name of security," I agree that those who favor security at the expense of liberty deserve neither -- to a point. You use the example of free speech: Yet there ARE sensible restrictions on this (libel law, the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc). There are also sensible restrictions on other human activity, and we call them laws. You cannot kill another person (in most cases). You can't steal. You can't drive on the wrong side of the road. These restrictions on freedom are basically to protect others from harm. I am just saying there should be sensible regulation (there's that unfortunate word again) of weapons as well. Using your logic above, if we take YOUR premise down a slippery slope, its logical conclusion is a society with no laws. Perhaps you yearn for the days of the wild wild West, when the only controlling authority was the gun on everyone's hip. I (obviously) don't.

"The free market of ideas and the basic human dignity to protect your family, property, and life from all encroachments public and private is essential to a free society." I agree 100 percent. That is why, I believe, we are a nation of laws, not lawlessness.

Finally: My comments are not intended to be snarky. But I can't resist: "Are (you) also in favor of registering all bows and arrows, boomerangs, and VW Beetles?" I do believe, in fact, the law requires us to register all VW Beetles.

I do enjoy reading others' opinions, especially when they are rational and somewhat informed, such as yours, Pam. Rather than demonize anyone whose opinion differs from my own. I believe I can learn from others.

Bob I also enjoy reading everyone's comments and I love the back and forth exchanges among everyone. I'm particularly pleased that there have been so many thoughtful comments on this guy's letter (if only one of the commenters had written it instead, but I digress) and I appreciate that you have stuck to your guns (pun intended) on this issue and been one of the only voices of dissent. In the "free market of ideas" it is vital that issues are debated by those who are well-informed, articulate, and persuasive in order to separate the issues from the nonsense and give people meaningful information so that they may decide for themselves.

Well, I've probably said all I need to say on this issue so I'll move on other ones.

BTW- I do like to play devil's advocate from time and I do have some issues with the majority opinion in Heller, but I'll save that for another forum.