Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry
| Own your ow legal marijuana business | Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry |
| Carl Olsen's Marijuana Archive |
Gun-debate (cont'd): A ban legal?
Count me among those in favor of stringent gun
controls.
D. J. Schachtner (Jan. 4 letter) claims that the right to bear arms is
inalienable. Wrong. There are many countries that rigorously restrict the
right to bear arms. The question is whether our country will do it, not whether
owing weapons is a divine right.
Every human being on the planet submits to social controls. We
give up some freedoms in order to enjoy other freedoms.
Our society can and does regulate individual behavior for the safety of
everyone. The majority of us would not want to indulge in habits that result in the
deaths of other people. I realize that some persons have symbolic and emotional
attachments to their guns. But when I measure this against the lives lost and the
dangers that loom in our streets, homes and workplaces, I conclude that the right to bear
arms cannot be worth the price we all are paying for it.
I don't believe that a constitutional amendment is required to restrict
gun ownership, but if it is I would gladly support it.
- Deborah Fink,
222 S. Russell, Ames.
Does the Second Amendment just apply to the National
Guard or does it also apply to common citizens?
The Second Amendment 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."
The militia has evolved into today's National Guard. The word
"state" in the amendment not only refers to individual states but also to the
country as a whole.
If "of the people" in the Second Amendment refers only to
government then all our constitutional amendments are worthless. The First Amendment
would allow only government-sponsored protest. Under the Fourth Amendment, people
could be searched at will.
To illustrate that "of the people" is meant for all of us,
read the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
- Jeff Hergert,
Box 591, Ogden.
Gun-control advocates assert that the Supreme Court
in U.S. vs. Miller (1939) restricted Second Amendment rights to the National Guard.
This is false.
Miller, a moonshiner convicted of failing to pay a prohibitively high
federal tax on a short-barreled shotgun, was freed by a federal judge on Second Amendment
grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that a weapon must be useful to a militia to
be protected under the Second Amendment and supported the prosecution's appeal simply
because the federal judge had taken it under judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun
qualified, rather than requiring expert testimony to that effect. (One implication
of this argument is that fully automatic rifles, as the basic military firearm, should
have more protection than other guns, not less.)
The decision did state that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to
protect the "effectiveness of the militia," but by this the court clearly did
not mean the National Guard. If it had, it would have said simply that Miller, as an
ordinary citizen, had no right to appeal based on the Second Amendment.
In fact, the Miller decision does provide a definition of the militia,
which is worth quoting: "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ... And
further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing
arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
- Wendy L. Applequist,
801 Crawford, Ames.
Gun-control laws are largely ineffective in
preventing crime. If they were successful, America would be the safest country on
the planet with over 10,000 laws currently on the books regulating the sale, transport and
possession of firearms. We have seen recent crime rates fall in America by being
tough on criminals and allowing citizens to protect themselves through the greater
availability of concealed-weapons permits.
Further restrictive gun-control measures have not become law in this
country because the National Rifle Association has successfully educated the public and
has, therefore, seen huge success at the polls. Initiative 676, which called for
restrictive gun licensing in Washington state, was soundly defeated with 71 percent of the
vote. And NRA-endorsed candidates won 88 percent of the elections in 1997.
This success by the NRA comes from an erudite electorate continuing to
tell lawmakers to attack criminals, not the freedom of law-abiding citizens.
- Jeff Siewert,
224 South St., Pella.
If Ivan Webber's opinion in the Dec.23 Register
("Gun Control: Repeal 2nd Amendment") was a fair sample of how lawyers think
these days, I really missed a bet by not going to law school.
For starters, we have gun control already, something like 20,000
victim-disarmament laws. If you think we can have a gun-free society by banning
guns, well it's too late. You can't "un-invent" something, and merely
banning it works about as well as the laws banning drugs. Besides, why should the
99-plus percent of gun owners who do not misuse their firearms suffer so that we can feel
like we're punishing the tiny minority that does misuse them.
I get very, very sick and tired of being characterized as a brainless
yahoo just because I don't think that gun-control laws would work or do what they're
intended to. Argumentum ad hominem was something my father, a lawyer
himself, cured me of years ago. It's a shame that whatever law school Webber
attended didn't do as much for him.
- Eric Oppen,
1015 Main St., Iowa Falls.
The Jan. 4 letter by the state coordinator for Iowans
for the Prevention of Gun Violence, who argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only
the right of armed National Guards to bear arms, demonstrates the type of attitude that
ultimately undermines all of our personal freedoms.
It would be inconsistent to suppose that the Bill of Rights are
proscriptions on the power of the national government, and at the same time somehow also
granted additional powers to the national government.
Using the logic of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, it could
be argued that the benefits of illegal searches and seizures out-weigh the minor
inconvenience of the Constitution. It could be argued that only religions registered
and sanctioned by the government be allowed to protect the people from being victimized by
cults. It could be argued that the media should be required to register articles
with the government before publications so that accuracy could be verified.
To suggest that laws can be passed to nullify sections of the
Constitution is foolish and dangerous to all our liberties, as all our freedoms are
interdependent. If one is disturbed, they all fall like dominoes.
- Edward A. Mearden,
9291 100th St., Ottumwa.