Letters to the editor

Check history A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens. I'm really getting worried folks. Notice how it's not called “gun control” anymore? Now it's called “gun safety.” Just change the term and people will just fall in line for this crap. All they want are “background” checks. We already have that. What Obama wants is registration which always leads to confiscation. Check your history, people. The Constitution guarantees liberty and freedom, not safety. Terry Collins Sebring
Second Amendment It is time to take a look back at some of the Second Amendment history before the debate descends into a battle of totally emotional exchanges without any rational look at history or practicality. For most of our history, there has been disagreement as to the intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution; was it the intent of the drafters that the first two clauses, to wit: “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” was merely an introductory recital to the subject matter of arms, or were these clauses part of the substantive content of the amendment? In Cruikshank (1875) and Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment did not create an individual right to bear arms and had a reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well-regulated militia. Not until Heller (2008) did the court rule it codified a preexisting right of an individual to keep arms for lawful purposes, but that “the right was not unlimited, not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” When the British marched to Lexington and Concord to seize the arms stored by the local militias, no search of house-to-house to discover individual arms was undertaken nor contemplated by the British. Yet the current “Second Amendment advocates” now contend such was the case. Now the dispute is drawn between those who contend that the Second Amendment denies the government any right to regulate the keeping and bearing of firearms and those who contend that magazine size limits, background checks and limits on so-called “assault” weapons were reasonable limitations on one’s rights respecting firearm ownership. The Senate, rather than open the floor to a full and fair debate on these positions, now threatens filibuster to prevent any debate on bills touching on these issues. Whatever happened to “Profiles in Courage” and legislative duty? The senators were sent to Washington to represent the will of the people, not refuse to consider and act on issues which may be detrimental to their personal political fortunes. Randy Ludacer Lake Placid