Disqus - Latest Comments for LeifRakur

Re: House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

LeifRakur — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:15:41 -0000

Nothing in this "concealed carry" issue involves the Second Amendment. The amendment says nothing at all about the private use of arms, either pro or con. Rather, it addresses a free state's need for the security of a well regulated militia and declares that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms to meet that need.

When context relates strictly to the militia, as it does in the Second Amendment, the words "bear arms" mean "provide militia service," not simply "carry arms."

James Madison, who drafted the Second Amendment for Congress, surely knew the military meaning of "bear arms." That meaning was the same in 1789 as it was during the War of 1812, when Madison used the "bear arms" phrase while President addressing Congress.

In an annual message to Congress, December 7, 1813, President Madison complained that regulations the British had put into effect in Canada were forcing some United States citizens "being there under certain circumstances to bear arms." Obviously, he wasn't objecting that citizens of the United States were being compelled by the British to carry arms in case of confrontation with a moose or an obnoxious neighbor.

Some of the hapless Americans, Madison said, had "borne arms" against the United States inside the limits of the United States, had become prisoners of war, and "are now in our possession."

Re: Letter: Second Amendment rights went out with covered wagons

LeifRakur — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:25:58 -0000

The Second Amendment has been morphed into a marketing tool. There are no words in the written amendment about the private use of arms. Rather, the amendment's words address the need of a free state for the security of a well regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms to meet that need.

A well regulated militia is one that is governed by "a well regulated Militia Law," to use the words of George Washington. Such a law, he said, would provide good officers who would make the militia render real service and "protect, instead of distressing, the inhabitants."

And Washington particularly insisted that such a law oblige every man to turn out who was "capable of bearing arms." The term "bearing arms," in militia context, means "providing milita service." Very old men in wheel chairs are capable of "carrying arms" of some sort, but they are not capable of "bearing arms" in militia context.

(Refer to Washington's letter to William Livingston, Governor of New Jersey, January 24, 1777)

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/polls/2011/jun/would-you-support-elimination-saturday-mail-delive/results/

LeifRakur — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:19:18 -0000

How about mail deliveries Mondays, Wednesdays, and
Fridays only? I could live with it.

Re: Chicago's threat to the Second Amendment | Firearms Lawyer - Federal Way Mirror

LeifRakur — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:31:57 -0000

Correcting typo:

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the future of the well regulated militia, not the private use of firearms.

“Federal Farmer,” often quoted by gun enthusiasts for his wise critiques of the Constitution, said in Letter VI on December 25, 1787, that a militia was an “unalienable or fundamental right” in the United States. It was one of 15 such rights Federal Farmer listed, saying that “The militia ought always to be armed and disciplined, and the usual defence of the country.” He listed no personal gun rights.

Re: Chicago's threat to the Second Amendment | Firearms Lawyer - Federal Way Mirror

LeifRakur — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:27:11 -0000

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the future of the militia, not the future of the well regulated militia, not the private use of firearms.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/14/saldana-proposes-curbs-gun-open-carry/

LeifRakur — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:07:09 -0000

The whole drive to proliferate guns in the hands of the general public, concealed or open, is vastly overworked. Undoubtedly some can tell hair-raising stories of their gun exploits, a few of which may even be true. But the overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens stand more chance to be hurt than saved by their firearms. I haven't felt a need for a gun since I turned in my rifle in France at the end of WWII. And no relative, friend, neighbor, or co-worker has ever toldl me that he might have saved himself from assault if he had only been carrying a gun. On the other hand, I have had two neighbors die, one an accident and the other a suicide, by gunfire from their own weapon.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/14/saldana-proposes-curbs-gun-open-carry/

LeifRakur — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:34:19 -0000

My hardcopy has the title, "State bill would end open-carry gun rights," and the by-line has no "because of protests" wording.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/14/saldana-proposes-curbs-gun-open-carry/

LeifRakur — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:27:37 -0000

Open carry is open intimidation.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/14/saldana-proposes-curbs-gun-open-carry/

LeifRakur — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:20:56 -0000

Thomas Jefferson didn't say that. Bogus quote.

Re: Gun crazy - Issaquah Reporter

LeifRakur — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:36:15 -0000

We Americans should be ashamed of ourselves for not forcing our politicians to develop a backbone on gun control.

The Spanish language makes a politically relevant gender distinction. An “hombre publico” (a public man) is a politician, while a “mujer publica” (a public woman) is a prostitute. In English, on the other hand, we understand the feminine definition in both cases.