Letters to the editor (02/06/13)
Second Amendment should be clarified
What’s so sacred about the Second Amendment? “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.”
It seems clear that this amendment, along with other parts of the U.S. Constitution, is so vague and unclear that it has been open to a multitude of contradictory interpretations (though it seems equally clear enough to me that the phrases “well regulated militia” and “security of a free state” do not lend themselves to the interpretation given by the so-called “gun-ownership rights” people.)
I am admittedly not a constitutional scholar, but I suspect that the wording of this amendment is due to the particular circumstances of that time in which it was written and contains assumptions not entirely revealed by its wording.
In other words, this amendment needs more clarity and suitability for the present and future ages. Of course, this amendment, as with all parts of the Constitution, cannot be simply removed.
It is for these reasons that I believe that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced by one that has, as I mentioned above, more clarity and suitability for a different world.
I don’t pretend to know exactly what form it should take — that should be the subject of a more thorough debate.
‘The Last Stand’ was a memorable experience
In the fall of 2011, I was selected to be an extra on the set of the movie, “The Last Stand,” along with hundreds of others including the Belen High School band, football team and cheerleading squad.
We all worked hard that day rehearsing, over and over again, the opening scene where Arnold was talking to the mayor of the town as the football team was leaving for the state championship.
When I went to see the movie, I was disappointed that only about 10 seconds of our day’s work (10-plus hours if I recall) made it onto the silver screen.
To all of those who were there that day: Good job! I spoke to some of the people on the set and they thought we were all excellent extras.
Let’s hope this will help bring more movie productions to town.
We need to return to God’s teachings
This is in reference to the column, “A solution,” by Curt Gustafson in the Jan. 19 edition of the Valencia County News-Bulletin.
Mr. Gustafson’s hatred for automatic weapons would apply what I would call a “reverse rationale.” He would require everyone to possess “the musket, the flinlock pistol and the cannon.”
If we would apply his “reverse rationale” to the First Amendment to our Constitution (freedom of speech and freedom to exercise religion, press, etc.), then no one today would have a television, a radio, a telephone, a printing press, a computer, etc.
I think that sounds reasonable, according to Mr. Gustafson’s rationale and application of his interpretation of the Second Amendment and his resolution of the problem with guns.
I suggest a better solution to Mr. Gustafson’s suggested resolution of the problem.
If this nation would return to its beliefs, culture, and adherence to following God as it did when or forefathers framed our great Constitution, then we would have a lot fewer problems. Children would be taught to obey their parents, respect one another and their teachers.
While the return to the “musket, the flintlock pistol and the cannon,” and be without radios, televisions, telephones and the press will not come about.
We could however, return to a great number of people who believe in God and His direction for mankind. This would change our nation, our values and respect for one another, and resolve many of the problems we currently have in this great nation.
God’s word tell us in the Bible (II Chronicles: 7:14): “If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and will heal their land.”
We need to pray for Him and do this.
His facts are well researched, accurate
Wow, what to say as an answer to Del Gabaldon’s letter of Jan. 16, filled with no factual information (opinion only), hate, false witness, divination/mind reading (witchcraft), dogmatism and name calling?
And it is even worse that he thinks that such emotionally rendered garbage is a legitimate “debate” anyplace outside of a barroom filled with loud intoxication.
Mostly, though, since I am not going to play the name calling game, there is a point worth considering.
Whenever I read Mr. Gabaldon’s attempt at offering one of his blessings, I smell the distinct odor of burning sulfur and brimstone in the air.
Occasionally, I do write a short letter, like the occasional others, whenever I do not have any specific and important information or facts to offer.
But when I do offer facts, the facts will meet the criteria of being well-researched and accurate, truth/reality (not smart-xxx opinionated and hiding behind compound words (labels) starting with “pro”).