To The Editor:

I am weighing in again on gun control.

A few weeks ago, I wrote to suggest that the NRA stay quiet while we citizens talk about the issue. I hit a nerve, but I realize now that there is more to say.

It was decided long ago that gun ownership was not limited to “a well regulated militia” and I am OK with that for those who must have guns.

But, like almost half of Americans, I do not own any guns because I never needed one to hunt or target shoot growing up in Chicago; so the Second Amendment was really never the one I thought about.

When gun control came up (as after the attempted assassination of President Reagan) I could not understand the heat and anger of so many gun advocates. I still don’t.

To me the president and other gun-control advocates are drawing a line in the sand that says: on this side are good people, responsible people who have licensed, registered and even insured themselves and their weapons.

There are those on the other side of the line who don’t take that responsibility. I have no idea why. No one is going to confiscate anyone’s guns. That would be an impossible task anyway.

I would like to see semi-automatic guns and large-capacity clips gone, but that is my personal preference. They are weapons only for the killing of human beings mostly used by the militaries of the world, and so I think they should not be in civilian hands.

The president and Congress must work out something that is a compromise between your preferences and mine that will keep all of us safe no matter where we are.

Glenda Turck


(32) comments

Dr Strangelove

Bubba you know as well as I do they don’t care about the common people especially we people in flyover country—all they care about is money and power.


Of this I am well aware. However, the Constitution is far more powerful than these.


My right to have a firearm is what protects your right to tell me I can’t have one. The so-called “gun control debate” is over. It has been over since the Bill of Rights was ratified. The Constitution is perfectly clear. Further, the recent Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia V. Heller, makes it clear that the people have the right to keep and bear arms as a personal right, and this right cannot be abrogated by any government. Accordingly, the recent attempts by liberal politicians to create “gun control” legislation are unconstitutional. These politicians are fostering sedition, and they are called upon to stop attacking the Constitution and law-abiding citizens with their illegal bills. If these politicians cannot find the courage to support and defend the Constitution, as they swore they would, they are obliged to resign and step aside, which will allow Real Americans to take their place in government and preserve the Constitution as it was meant to be served.

Dr Strangelove

Sheepdog57 HOOAH! Also thank you for protecting my life and others. I cannot praise enough about Law Enforcement they are on guard duty/front lines 24/7.


Ms. Girz the worst massacre of children occurred in Bath Township, MI in 1927 when Andrew Kehoe dynamited the consolidated school. He killed 44 (38 children) and wounded 58. He had used hundreds of pounds of explosive, he had acquired over several months. He later killed himself by blowing up his vehicle.

Not possible today because of modern explosive laws? At Columbine, Klebold & Harris made propane bombs that would have added numerous additional casualties had they worked. Timothy McVeigh proved that ammonium nitrate, nitromethane and fuel oil make a device of horrible power.

What's my point? My point is that the truly evil or unbalanced will find a way. They will ignore any law or restriction you enact to come up with the means to carry through their foul acts.

We have hundreds of laws and regulations on the books that serve as a means to deter violence. And they do serve a purpose, deterring many. But their will always be offenders in such places as Newtown, Aurora and other locations who will ignore them.

The regulations you support will not, and have not, shown themselves to prevent these horrific acts. As a retired law enforcement officer I would supported them if they did, but they emphatically do not. Quite frankly, the so called "gun free" zones have done nothing but create a target rich environment where evil or crazed offenders know that the law abiding are not armed and are vulnerable.

You have nothing to fear from the law abiding gunowner with a high capacity weapon. That very person may indeed save you at the school, mall or theater when a violent predator choses to act.

Dr Strangelove

Mama Girz, I see you’re using a typical liberal tactic you have no facts so insult the person. As for more children are killed and injured in bathtub accidents than gun accidents these are stats you have a computer do the research you may want to start with the CDC.

No one is taking away your rights to go anywhere however let’s look at whose rights were taken away. Colorado is a right to carry State; law abiding citizens with carry permits rights were taken away because that theater was a GUN FREE ZONE!

Suzanna Gratia Hupp, former member of the Texas House of Representatives, District 54 rights and parents were taken away along with 21 other lives at Luby’s in Killeen because of some dumb gun-control law that doesn’t work. Let’s see what Connecticut has? They have an assault weapons ban similar to the Clinton assault weapons ban, they have GUN FREE ZONES in their schools did these laws stop the massacre—NO!

All States that started right to carry laws violent crime has went down—fact.

Chicago is one of the most strict gun control law major city in the United States yet just look at Chicago’s murder stats—they’ve had more people killed by guns in that gun control paradise than all of our soldiers killed in action in our eleven years at war.

Mama Girz, doesn’t look like your amiable gun-control law/bans are working. Also if you live in Killeen that’s where I live when you go to a store or place of worship there are people around you that are armed. You see the little old lady walking in store more than likely she’s packing heat I’ve been to enough CHL classes to know; you’d be surprised who is carrying—I feel safer because of it.

One more thing Mama, as a Professional Soldier I know you don’t use a M4 rifle to kill a tank you use another tank. If you’re in a public place and some nut comes in with a handgun to do harm calling 911 will not stop the threat—you use another handgun to take away the threat.

BTW: A week after she performed at festivities during President Obama's inauguration, Hadiva Pedleton a 15-year-old majorette was shot dead in Chicago. Looks like those Chicago gun bans didn’t work for this child either.


Demogoguery is an old tactic.

Listen to the voices that use these techniques, and you will wake up one day and realize that you have given away your liberty. Then, it will be too lae to recover it, as you will have freely given your sovereignty to the government, and those seeking to rule your life.

Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Those in Washington right now, violating the Constitution with their gun ban proposals, are my employees. I pay their salaries-and they need to remember that and do as they're told.


When you start commentary by calling people names and insulting them ("gun nuts"), then make the kind of commetns you make, it's difficult to have an adult conversation with you. When you insult those with different views than yours, you continue to prove my point of the intolerance and incivility of the liberals in this country. Yes, all the persons you mention in your comment have rights; what you refuse to understand is that we, the people, have rights as well. More importantly, our rights are contained in the Constitution. Maybe you should try reading that document. There is danger in daily living; bathtubs and cars and chain saws. Banning something every time you are upset is not an American trait we seek to emulate.

Mamma Griz

Oh, I get it now. Only gun nuts have rights? Where are MY rights to go to a theater to see a movie? Or to go to a mall to shop? Or to see children leave for school in the morning and return home in the afternoon? They don't have rights?

Dr Strangelove, where in history have you read about 20 children being killed and injured AT ONE TIME in a bathtub?: Can you cite the place from where you got your crazy idea about children and bathtub accidents? Post it for the education of people who probably have been around longer than you have.

Dr Strangelove

Mama Girz, should we ban bathtubs because more children are killed and injured in bathtub accidents than gun accidents. Of course we should not ban bathtubs it would not be logical just like your points in your comment are not logical. Yes I do know people that use AR-15 semi automatic rifles with 20/30 round magazines for hunting. When I was a kid I had a .22 rifle semi-automatic it held twenty rounds, it had no magazine so not considered an assault rifle but fires the same as an AR-15. Let’s say we go by you and the President’s logic and restricted everyone to 10 round magazine. Do you know how fast it is to change a 10 magazine—obviously not nor do those politicians in Washington or they would put forward such dumb proposals. BTW it takes about 2 seconds.

Who are you restricting? Law abiding citizens that’s who! You want to take away our rights and support the criminals. Crooks don’t care about laws ask the three guys in jail right now [two illegally had handguns] from the article in today’s KDH. The problem with you gun control people is you base everything on emotion not facts just look at your comment it’s mainly based on emotion. Look at the burglary rate in the UK it’s four times higher because the crooks know people in that house doesn’t have a firearm for protection. Do some research on the net about the riots in London home owners said things like this, “America don’t let this happen in your country, I holding a bat the rioters had guns.”


Demogoguery is the favorite tool of the tyrant. They mock the Constitution and exploit the bodies of dead children in order to strip the people of their rights as they tell tales designed to vilify law-abiding citizens. They go on about how you citizens really have no need to defend yourselves from their desire to rule and if you were a "decent, reasonable" sort, you would give up your rights. They wail about how there is no modern requirement for the militia, even as the Supreme Court rules this to be false. They vilify the tradional use of arms for hunting and recreation by comparing these lawful activities with murder committed by the criminally insane. They stomp on the Constitution and declare themselves justified to do so, as it makes them feel better.

Yes, it is an old technique. One used very effectively in the last Germany.

Perhaps a review of history would be in order-or perhaps a study of American heritage. Before the demogogues rule. Don't say later that I failed to warn you now.

I am the NRA.

Mamma Griz

It is funny to me that the people who talk about the founding fathers and the Second Amendment fail to remember what the guns were like back in the days of the founding fathers. They sure as heck didn't have "assualt-type" weapons and 50-round magazines. They fought with simple guns-- even used them for hunting. In this day and time, people say that they need semi-automic rifles and large capacity magazines to protect their home, their family and their property. I guess you can say the semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines are for hunting-- seems that is the choice for hunting down and slaughtering 20 children and 6 staff at a school. Protection from what? Twenty innocent children who aren't armed or harming the "great white hunter"? Oh wait-- they might gang up on him and beat him to death. Therefor the need to protect himself! Or the hunter who killed all those in a darkened theater. Protection against what? People who weren't doing anything but watching a movie? Oh well, we all go sometime-- but for sure it is too soon if it is innocent children.


English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

(Edited by staff.)


Why, after the forefathers tried to make it as simple as possible, for the ones who would come after them,
do some of the country's citizens, still not know how to read and interpret the laws sit down in the Constitution and to be followed as the Supreme Laws of the Land.

Why, are some so dense they keep insisting the Constitution is a 'living' object to be changed at will.
What is being said when using words of such nature, is that you are not happy or satisfied with the America that's was built for the people, using those laws of the land and in which we were to exist under.
Which if people with those feelings are allowed their way,will destroy all that America was meant to be and has become.

We have been known as the greatest land in the world, many in that world think this simply because of that Constitution drawn up by our original law makers. The U.S. is envied by many because they have nothing in comparison with our Constitution.

It didn't come easy to have the right to live in a country with the freedoms we have simply because of some pieces of paper known as our Constitution. It resulted from a long hard fought battle,many gave their lives for that cause. And we should instead of condemning what came as a result, our freedoms and our Constitution, Thank God he sit such men in our country.

I will not dishonor them, by allowing myself to be talked into something I do not believe is right, which is the right to bear arms as stated by those who had to use arms to get me that right.

Yes they used the arms of the time,which today would only be used as a much priced collectors item,or by re-enactors, but take my word,if they would of had A-15's, themselves, they would have been in their arsenal the same as in their enemy of the time,the Kings soldiers.

The people at the time of our forefathers decided enough is enough,we have to fight for our rights, (take some minutes to read the Dec. of Ind. and the charges against King George, they sound so similar) but those who didn't want to be involved (Ben Franklin's son William being one) were given the choice to pack up and move out. I guess it was the 1st time the term -America,Love it or Leave it - was coined. No one was forced to believe in anything they had a problem with, Just as today.
There is a majority in the U.S. (no matter what liberal polls state) who do believe, that the rights under the Constitution should not be screwed with,by people who many, don't know what in the heck they're talking about.

The below is the main connection to our freedoms and rights. Think a long time before you agree to giving any of them up.But once you do,don't come begging others to defend you.

The Supreme Law of the Land.
The US Constitution and federal laws and treaties that adhere to the Constitution officially became the "supreme law of the land" in the United States on March 4, 1789.

Article VI the document and the laws of the United States which "shall be made in pursuance thereof..." are the "Supreme Law of the Land." The phrase, "shall be made in pursuance thereof" indicates the Constitution is the ultimate authority to which all other laws and treaties must conform.

Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause)
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it.
If we desire to secure peace,one of the most powerful instruments of our rising,
It must be known that we are,
at all times ready for war.
~ George Washington ~
General of the Revolutionary Army
President of the United States

Dr Strangelove

Sorry for going off topic:
Tail Gunner come on comparing the Wound Knee incident to some to the mass shooting by some crazy people is really far reaching. Actually the United States Army showed great restraint before the battle.

Specific details of what triggered the fight are still debated. According to some accounts, a medicine man named Yellow Bird began to perform the Ghost Dance, reiterating his assertion to the Lakota that the ghost shirts were bulletproof.

Yellow Bird threw some dust into the air, and approximately five young Lakota men with concealed weapons threw aside their blankets and fired their rifles at Troop K of the 7th. After this initial exchange, the firing became indiscriminate.

The Lakota started it the U.S. Cavalry finished it. The Lakota are at fault for the collateral damage.

If you fire at the United States Army you’re going to get spanked. Ask the Iraqis who under a cease fire fired at the 24th Infantry Division in Desert Storm.


To me the president and other gun-control advocates are drawing a line in the sand that says:

on this side are good people, responsible people who have licensed, registered and even insured themselves and their weapons.

There are those on the other side of the line who don’t take that responsibility.

~ but that is my personal preference.~

I believe the last sentence above has finally answered your question about the who's for ? & who's against ? gun ownership.

Now leave others have their own personal preference.

But since you seem to be so interested in the subject of guns and seem to have a large interest in them,
You could take on a new project concerning the subject of guns and get some answers many have been wondering about.

Take a trip to Mexico,get a correct count of how many innocent citizens where murdered with guns that you may have helped buy with your tax dollars, when our federal gov. allowed them to be sent into that foreign country.
Find out if the tax payers of the U.S. have had to pay off any of the families who had family members murdered with those guns to compensate for their lives.

If that isn't of an interest to you,and you say you're from Chicago, that's the place to go, check out the gun situation and all the people murdered there just this past year, which for some reason,no one in Washington that should be interested is interested.

Wonder why,is it because it mostly involves black kids? Some think so, but You could check that out too.

Or even go to the extreme, of trying to find where most of the Chicago guns that have been used and are illegal,

find out where they are coming from, how they got them. We and you might be surprised at what you find out.

But as long as a gun owner in the country is a legal law abiding citizen who has done no harm, there should be no reason what so ever,for me, or any other to want to take away something that is theirs legally. The privilege has been theirs,mine and ours for over 200 years.
And I think anyone who keeps trying to interfere with that legal ownership is only wasting their time .

And are showing they're true colours.


Tail Gunner

Keep in mind that THE WORST mass shooting was committed by the US Military (7th US Calvary) on Dec 29 1890 at the massacre at Wounded Knee. Around 290 unarmed indians were ruthlessly slaughtered, of those 290, 200 were women and children. Those who managed to escape the initial carnage, were tracked down and murdered. The initial bloodbath committed by the 7th US Calvary was done by using standard mil-issued weapons at that time, along with 4 Hotchkiss Revolving Cannons.

I myself own several firearms, of which a few are ARs and AKs with high cap magazines. I said hi cap not standard capacity magazines that are 30 rounds for ARs and AKs. Im talking about 50 to 100 round beta mags (single and dual drum). I will not give them up nor will I register them. I refuse to be treated like some sort of sex offender just because I am a responsible firearms owner who has never killed anyone. The only things I killed are, paper targets, AR 500 steel targets, fruits and veggies, soda bottles, game animals, etc, but not humans. But I have no problem with using deadly force on anyone who threatens my safety, my family/friends/those unable to defend themselves against oppressors.


I know position of author in this position in community. But it's because I've researched the city I live in unlike someone else posting here. Lol! Kidding aside, Bill of Rights was written by mortals. It's not like it's the 10 Commandments passed down by The Lord to Moses & his stone tablets. In fact originally, Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men, excluding American Indians, blacks & women.These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Rights' text, but were well understood and applied. Times have changed since they wrote it & laws were constantly amended as the nation changed. S. Gratia-Hupp used momentum of Luby's shooting to get concealed handgun laws in place in Texas. It was a sign of the times & the right thing to do. Now people will use aftermath of CT. shooting (after doing little to change gun laws after so many other mass shootings) to try & get stricter gun control laws. So what? It's a sign of the times. Loving my guns & not worried about my rights being trampled. My rights don't supersede the rights of victims of gun violence. They have rights to try & get stricter gun laws in place too. If gun violence isn't curbed then laws can always be amended again! Change is coming. Accept it or not.


You are free to surrender your rights. You are not free to surrender mine. When the government arrives at your door to take your guns and whatever else they deem necessary-remember your words here today.


You did not write in to "suggest" anything; you wrote a letter demanding that American citizens follow your orders and be quiet while you and your friends decide what our rights are. There's no doubt you're from chicago; but the real question is: Just who do you think you are?

Dr Strangelove

@haiki I can Google too:
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

In Federalist No 29 Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"

Meaning of "keep and bear arms"

In Heller the majority of Supreme Court rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.


If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”). “Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights. Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”?
Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

Article 2, Section 2 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;…”

In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times.

It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”.

“..No Person shall be a Representative..”
“..whole Number of free Persons,..”
“..three fifths of all other Persons…”
“..No person shall be a Senator…”
“..And no Person shall be convicted…”
“ Person holding any Office…”
“..Names of the Persons voting for…”
“…of such Persons as any of the States…”
“…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…”
“…And no Person holding any…”
“…or Person holding an Office of Trust o…“
“…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…”
“…List of all the Persons voted for,…”
“…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes…”
“…and if no Person have a Majority,…”
“…the Person having the greatest Number…”
“…No person except a natural born Citizen,…”
“…Any Person be eligible to that ….”
“…No Person shall be convicted of …”
“…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”.
“…A Person charged in any State…”
“…No Person held to Service…”
“…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…”
“…and the persons or things to be seized….”
“..No person shall be held to answer…”
“..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….”
“…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…”
“…the person voted for as Vice-President,…”
“…all persons voted for as President,….”
“…all persons voted for as Vice-President…”
“…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …”
“…and if no person have such majority,…”
“..the persons having the highest numbers …”
“… The person having the greatest number of votes…”
“..and if no person have a majority,…”
“…But no person constitutionally ineligible…”
“…All persons born or naturalized …”
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…”
“…nor deny to any person within …”
“…number of persons in each State,….”
“…No person shall be a Senator or …”
“..and such person shall act accordingly….”
“…of the death of any of the persons from…”
“…death of any of the persons from…”
“…No person shall be elected to the office…”
“…and no person who has held the office of President,…”
“ which some other person was elected…”
“…shall not apply to any person holding the office…”
“..prevent any person who may be holding…”

Excerpts in reading Emerson v. United States (1999), or Miller v. United States (1939), one can be struck with the many thoughts, interpretations of what the second amendment means, but more important how it came about and ended. However, even still, I am left with the thought if the Framers had treated Amendment 2 with the same obedience, and reverence to explain the 49 Constitutional references to “person”, there would be no controversy in what is perceived as a right to bear arms.

United States v Emerson
“The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government's success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess "all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England."
“A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.”
“The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution. HALBROOK, supra at 223 n. 145 (citing James Monroe Papers, New York Public Library (Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe)).”

307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller
Structural Analysis
“Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. "After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people." David Harmer, Securing a Free State: Why The Second Amendment Matters, 1998 BYU L. REV. 55, 60 (1998). Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of, individual rights. Id. Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people.”

After debating by the Framers on the proposed right to bear arms, from these few references, some credence is given to the “intent” to “to bear arms”. Analysis of structural statutory construction, “..viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights,..” individual citizens, a person, to “bear arms“ however proposed and debated, there is reference to “person” mentioned 49 times, is this not to be considered when looking at the context of the entire Bill Of Rights? Right to bear arms was debated and proposed, but the Second Amendment remains silent.

The explaining by the many well intentioned people into trying to bring the Second Amendment into the 21st century gun debate cannot be overcome by interpretive speculation evolving into word variations hoping that if you say it something long enough, many times over and over again, people will believe it. You cannot get there from here.

“If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform it to it’s intent. “It is beyond our province to rescue Congress from it’s drafting errors, and to provide for what we might the preferred result.” Fullbright v. United States Dep’t of Educ.

Jones v Smart [1785} 1 Term Rep.44,52 (per Buller, J.) “[W]e are bound to take the act of parliament, as they made it: a casus omissus can in no case be supplied by a Court of Law, for that would be to makes laws.” (Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts) Antonin Scalia/ Bryan A. Gardner .West.

What are we missing?


The heller decision encapsulates things nicely.


Every time we pro-Second Amendment people have taken the bait to compromise with the anti-Second Amendment forces, we have seen our rights chipped away, piece by piece. When our founders penned the Second Amendment, they deliberately ignored any mention of what type weapons should be protected by the right to keep and bear arms, since it was their intention that We The People should be equipped with state-of-the-art weaponry. In the founders' day, that would have been flintlock muskets, but today, it is in the form of technologically advanced firearms that provide simplicity of operation and effective modern sporting rifles, commonly and mistakenly referred to as assault weapons.

Ms. Turck states that the Second Amendment never was anything about which she ever thought, because she never hunted or shot at targets. The whole point, however, is that the Second Amendment has do with hunting or the shooting sports. It was written into the Constitution to guarantee the natural right of We The People to possess arms for self-defense and.....very importantly.....a bulwark against a tyrannical government. When she states that "no one is going to confiscate anyone's guns" she ignores the efforts that have been made, in the past, and that are being introduced in Congress right now. Senator Dianne Feinstein has been on a quest for years to confiscate personal firearms from private citizens, and her current efforts in the Senate are designed to do just that. Her gun-hating allies in Congress are lining up to support her efforts to effect bans, registration, limitation, and ultimately confiscation.

If the NRA was to "stay quiet" our representatives would likely be happy to be blindly led down the path toward total disarmament of the American populace. While we private citizens do maintain contact with our Representatives and Senators, the NRA provides a degree of political clout that is not available to we mere citizens, unless we become members of the organization and continue to support its well organized efforts at preserving our rights.

While we appreciate Ms. Turck's thoughts concerning public safety, she exhibits a degree of prejudice against the very rights that protect her right to publish comments in conflict with the long standing right of We The People to keep and bear arms.

Conrad A. Novack
Lt Col, US Army (Ret)&
KISD Educator (Ret)
NRA Benefactor Life Member


So, what you are saying is that you'd be perfectly happy to compromise on your right to vote. Am I understanding you correctly?

Dr Strangelove

Ms. Turck, please do some research on the city you live in. On October 16, 1991, 35-year-old George Hennard, an unemployed wacko drove his pickup truck through the front window of Luby’s cafeteria here in Killeen. He got out of his truck and murdered 23 people and wounded 20 with two handguns a Glock 17 and a Ruger P89—not military type assault weapons.

I think you should talk to Suzanna Gratia Hupp, former member of the Texas House of Representatives, District 54, who was present at the time of the massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. She later expressed regret about deciding to leave her gun in her car lest she risk possibly running afoul of the state's concealed weapons laws; during the shootings, she reached for her weapon but then remembered that it was "a hundred feet away in my car.

Just think Glenda, if one person was allowed to have a handgun that day how many people would be alive?

All the proposals President Obama has pushed forward not one would have stopped the tragedy in Newtown, CT. Shame on this President for using the Newtown tragedy and surrounding himself with children to support his gun-control agenda after all he is a gun control politician from Chicago. His concern for children is a sham his voting record shows to let a baby die on the table if it survives an abortion speaks volumes about his so-called caring for children!!!

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who supported the Clinton so-called assault weapons ban has introduced and expanded one last week, guess what Glenda—GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE EXEMPT FROM IT! How dare her arrogance, we do not bow down to them, they’re not royalty, we are not subjects, we are citizens, they work for us.

As for your Chicago I know it well, being from Kalamazoo. Chicago is one of the most strict gun-control cities in the United States. In 2012 more people were killed with guns in Chicago than all of the coalition forces in Afghanistan in 2012—gun control doesn’t work for law abiding citizens.


Unfortunately, the forces in this country that desire to disarm you do not care about facts, or history, or even the law.


you think one person would make a different if she had her gun she would be hiding like she was do you think a soldier can just pick up his weapon and kill someone
your more scare & looking fof a pace to hide then firing back




Glenda, you should know that many gun lovers and owners like myself support the idea of compromise. We are sane, educated and intelligent enough to realize that there has to be a balance in gun ownership in Anerica. Many gun advocates like myself do not feel threatened by the governments proposals or that they are taking away freedoms. Responsible and legitimate owners will still keep our guns and have no problem jumping through hoops to buy more if even one life can be saved from the government's proposals. We realize gun violence rates in this country are higher than other industrialized nations and some compromises must be made. We are not an underdeveloped country and not a musket toting nation anymore. Change is part of life and with gun technology comes a larger responsibility to safeguard the 2nd amendment while looking out for fellow man. The world looks to us as one of the greatest nations. We must set an example to show other nations that we can achieve measures within our own country to curb gun violence. It's not just about mass murders but guns are used far too often in homicides, suicides and even result in accidental deaths. As a nation we have to at least try to lessen the gun violence. Gabby Giffords who was shot herself has joined this fight on Capitol Hill and her organization has had their first million dollar donation. No one has challenged these powerful, financially connected gun lobbies in the way it's about to happen.


Your continued arrogance and disdain for your fellow citizens is noted.


Your letter reveals a deep lack of knowledge concerning the history of our republic. It also reveals a deep arrogance against views that are not your own. You continue to vilify and demonize firearms owners for not following your rules. You simply are incapable of understanding that this is a Constitutional issue-and you are on the wrong side of it. More importantly, you are too blind to see that as well. We, the people, have the natural right to defend ourselves, primarily against the kind of government you want-over-reaching, intrusive government, that seeks to grow its power base by stripping sovereign citizens of their power to resist. The framers saw this and wrote the Bill of Rights accordingly, to protect this liberty from people like you. You do not have the right to dictate to me or anyone else what are Constitutionally protected rights are. There will be no compromise and no surrender, so long as senators sit in Washington who have documented desires for firearm confiscation. There will never be a day when you will be allowed to constructively amend the Constitution while ignoring the rights of others and the processes for amendment contained in the Constitution. I call on you to stop demanding that your views be followed, as it is you who must now compromise and follow the supreme law of the land. It is you who is provoking a Constitutional crisis and seeking to violate the rule of law and arrogantly impose your uninformed views on others. The time has come for you to stand with the Constitution, or deny that it applies to you. What shall it be?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.