Gun Control and the 2A Ltr to Editor - Please comment

[CrowJS]

Below is a letter I am sending to my local papers. There is a lot of knowledge and expertise on this forum, so would appreciate it if you would read and make suggestions on improving it. Thanks.

Gun Control and the 2d Amendment
There is going to be a great deal of discussion over the next few weeks about gun control and the right to keep and bear arms. I want to look at what the 2d Amendment means.

“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.” What do these words really mean? The militia at this time was all able-bodied males. It was comprised of two groups: the organized militia, who trained regularly and was the "quick reaction force"; and the unorganized militia - everyone else. “Regulated”, in this context, means “to make similar”, or “to keep to a standard”. Everywhere the Constitution talks about the “right of the People”, they are speaking about an individual right that belongs to all citizens.

When the Constitution was written, we had just gained our liberty from what we considered to be an oppressive government. It was, in fact, the local civilians who fired the “shot heard round the world” when they defended Lexington and Concord from a British force marching to confiscate firearms and ammunition the local militias were storing. So, the Founding Fathers believed that the citizen was the nations’ first line of defense. Mississippi still has a militia, divided into an organized militia (the National Guard) and unorganized (all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 years - Art 9, Sect 214).

If we re-write the 2d Amendment into modern English, I believe that it would read something like this: “An armed citizenry is necessary to defend a free nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Therefore, the citizens’ individual right to keep and bear weapons suitable for defending our freedom shall not be restricted”. It says nothing about hunting or personal defense, even though most infantry weapons are excellent choices for these purposes. They were concerned about the nation and keeping the freedoms they had bled and died for, to which they had pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

I am not advocating that every household maintain a full-auto M16 and I most definitely do not advocate an atomic bomb in every garage (yes, I've heard that). It takes training to effectively fire full-auto, and aimed fire is much more effective than “spray and pray”. As far as an atomic bomb, let’s be real.

When someone talks about “gun control”, however well-intentioned, they are actually talking about restricting your ability to defend your community. This is a civic responsibility that you bear because you are a citizen. We can delegate the authority to do so to the National Guard and police, but we can never delegate the responsibility. You, as an individual, can choose to not exercise your right to keep and bear arms, but no one has the authority to force it on you.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[RightsEroding]

Liberal paper? Good luck
Conservative or middle of the road?..They'll probably run it.

[WINTEJER000]

good luck in my town the paper practicaly prays to obama,
howeve i like the way you wrote it

[Crowman]

I would not bring up re-writing the 2nd amendment... It could be taken(and most likely will) you feel it does need re-writing. I would also stay away of what you are not advocating rather focus on what needs advocating. Just my thoughts........

Actually a fully automatic rifle is a "weapon of the day" they are used by the military(which could also be called Militia) and by many law enforcement agencies. As to the law enforcement agencies they are used to protect themselves and others. Given that, semi automatic rifles are most certainly "weapons of the day". AR15 and AK47 are not the only semi automatic rifles sold in America. In fact some of the "so called hunting rifles" are more lethal than the "evil" AR15 and AK47. They simply do not look like the "evil" rifle.

[tangoseal]

I like everything but be careful with re-writing. I would simply recommend what it means in modern day english but do not recommend a re-word to be a lawful decree or recommendation.

[CrowJS]

Thanks for the input!

[oakchas]

Most LTEs are limited in word count.
Then, they can be further edited.

Good luck.

[Exacto]

Personally I would not lay the Constitution in front of these swine for them to trample on.

[Lotus222]

I agree, I would steer clear of re-wording the 2A.

Freedom needs defending. Own the best armaments you can get your hands on. Threats against freedom come in all forms and fashions. You are given the right to protect it against any, and every, form or fashion.

[shadowwalker]

As we have learned the press is not always known for properly printing what has been given to them in good faith

[DwFall]

Thanks, this will help me respond to what I feel are important points without raising the anger of the other person. Or at least that's my theory I'm going to test. At least for me after reading your letter. I felt calmer and more resolute in what I believe to be right.

[OldVet]

Tha's pretty good. Some suggestions in [ ].

Gun Control and the 2d Amendment

[There is going to be a great deal of discussion over the next few weeks about gun control and the right to keep and bear arms. I want to look at what the 2[n]d Amendment [words really mean.]

“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 at this time was all able-bodied males[ and was] comprised of two groups: the organized militia, who trained regularly and was the "quick reaction force"; and the unorganized militia - everyone else. “Regulated[,]” in this context, means “to make similar[,]” or “to keep to a standard[.]” Everywhere the Constitution talks about the “right of the People[,]” they are speaking about an individual right that belongs to all citizens.

When the Constitution was written, we had just gained our liberty from what we considered to be an oppressive government. It was, in fact, the local civilians who fired the “shot heard round the world” when they defended Lexington and Concord from a British force marching to confiscate firearms and ammunition the local militias were storing. So, the Founding Fathers believed that the citizen was the nation['s] first line of defense. Mississippi still has a militia, divided into an organized militia (the National Guard) and unorganized (all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 years - Art 9, Sect 214).

If we [were to translate] the 2[n]d Amendment into modern English, I believe that it would read something like this: “An armed citizenry is necessary to defend a free nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Therefore, the citizens’ individual right to keep and bear weapons suitable for defending our freedom shall not be restricted[.]” It says nothing about hunting or personal defense, even though most infantry weapons are excellent choices for these purposes. They were concerned about the nation and keeping the freedoms [for which they] had bled and/or died, [and] to which they had pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

When someone talks about “gun control”, however well-intentioned, they are actually talking about restricting your ability to defend your community. This is a civic responsibility that you bear because you are a citizen[, just as we are all expected to serve on a jury if called]. We can delegate the authority to do so to the National Guard and police, but we can never delegate the responsibility. You, as an individual, can choose to not exercise your right to keep and bear arms, but no one has the authority to force it on you.

[Periods and commas go inside quotation marks throughout. Your paraagraph on the M-16 and atomic bombs was going off tangent.]

[Jemsaal]

I've done quite a bit of "style reading" for a educational institution, and also am on a couple writing websites where we critique each others writings. I've done the same thing for your letter so that your message is crystal clear. Overall, I liked what you have to say and like some of the arguments you marshal for it. I'd make the changes that I marked below, though most of them issues of grammar/syntax.

Hope it helps. Oh, and the reason I did this critique, is because people who are reading it will be looking for any and every way to discount it if they disagree with you. If they can't discount the arguments, they'll look to grammar and syntax to discount it, and I hope that your letter actually gets published and people engage it. Good job!

Gun Control and the 2d Second, not 2d Amendment
There is going to be a great deal of discussion over the next few weeks about gun control and the right to keep and bear arms. I want to look (you want to explore what it means, not "look" at it) at what the 2d (Second)Amendment means.

“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.” What do these words really mean? The militia at this time was all able-bodied males. It was comprised of two groups: the organized militia, )remove the second space here)who trained regularly and was the "quick reaction force"; and the unorganized militia - (this should be an emdash with no space on either side)everyone else. “Regulated”, in this context, means “to make similar” (remove comma) or “to keep to a standard”. Everywhere the Constitution talks(refers, not talks. The constitution can't talk) about the “right of the People”, they (Who does "they" refer too? You're talking about the constitution here, not about people.)are speaking about an individual right that belongs to all (if you're talking about individual rights, then this is each citizen, not all citizens citizens.

When the Constitution was written, we had just gained our liberty from what we considered to be an oppressive government. It was, in fact, the local civilians who fired the “shot heard round the world” when they defended Lexington and Concord from a British force marching to confiscate firearms and ammunition the local militias were storing.This point is very good - do you have sources for it? I'd source this so your readers can go read it for themselves So, the Founding Fathers believed that the citizen was the nations’This should be nation's first line of defense. Mississippi still has a militia, divided into an organized militia (the National Guard) and unorganizedyou need to put militia here as well. Or you can divide as such, "Mississippi still has a militia, both organized (the National Guard) and unorganized (all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 years - Art 9, Sect 214).

If we re-write the 2d Amendment into modern English, I believe that it would read something like this: “An armed citizenry is necessary to defend a free nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Therefore, the citizens’ individual right to keep and bear weapons suitable for defending our freedom shall not be restricted”.As others have said, this weakens your argument considerably. It puts moves it from "fact" to opinion, this is how "you" think it should read) It says nothing about hunting or personal defense, even though most infantry weapons are excellent choices for these purposes. They Who does "they" refer to here? You're speaking of a re-written 2A and haven't introduced anyone else in this paragraph) were concerned about the nation and keeping the freedoms they had bled and died for, to which they had pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. This last sentence is awkward because you give the final action "died" before the pledge. Switch those for more impact. "were concerned about the nation and keeping the freedoms to which they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors; a pledge for which many bled and/or died.

I am not advocating that every household maintain a full-auto M16 and I most definitely do not advocate an atomic bomb in every garage (yes, I've heard that) (it's a good line, a humorous line, but it detracts from the driving points of the letter - I'd remove everything in read). It takes training to effectively fire full-auto, and aimed fire is much more effective than “spray and pray”. As far as an atomic bomb, let’s be real. (after reading this, I'm not sure it's necessary to include this paragraph at all. It takes away from the driving idea of we must have guns to protect ourselves from tierany

When someone talks about “gun control”, remove the comma here. If you want to keep it, put it inside the quote however well-intentioned, they(You have "someone" (singular) in the first sentence, here you have the plural "they." Stay with the singular or the plural on both counts) are actually talking about restricting your ability to defend your community. This (what? This . . . right, this amendment, this argument on gun control. Never leave a "this" naked. Put a referent directly after it so the reader doesn't have to guess what "this" refers too.)is a civic responsibility that you bear because you are a citizen. We can delegate the authority to do so to the National Guard and police, but we can never delegate the responsibility. You, as an individual, can choose to not exercise your right to keep and bear arms, but no one has the authority to force it on you. (this last phrase actually means, "no one has the authority to force the second amendment on you." Is that what you mean to say? Clarify what "it" means here. In all honesty, it sounds like you're countering the rest of your argument here by saying that no one can force the responsibility to bear arms on a person

EDIT: Wow my spelling is bad here.

[CrowJS]

Again, great input! I'm sending to three papers, two will print with little/no editing, the other we will have to see if they will even accept it. I'll post the final version when I send it in.
Again, thanks for all the help.