The right kind of pandering
Background: A letter in the Farmington Observer slammed Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox for submitting a brief to the Supreme Court in support of gun rights for a pending case involving Chicago's unconstitutional and onerous gun control laws. I have a different opinion on Cox's actions.
Congratulations to Attorney General Mike Cox for seeking to secure the rights of Michigan citizens to bear arms by weighing in on the Chicago gun control lawsuit. Anyone following the efforts to overturn government infringements on our inherent right to protect ourselves understands this requires a vigorous defense wherever that infringement occurs.
Even with last year’s Supreme Court ruling that correctly asserted an individual right to keep and bear arms, the fight is far from over. When a clear and undeniable right is protected by a razor thin 5-4 margin, we cannot rest.
As a state that allows citizens to protect themselves with concealed carry laws, any ruling on the Second Amendment directly affects the taxpayers of this state. If more elected officials pandered to their constituents by protecting their rights, this country would be a more prosperous and freer place.
[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 08/06/2009.]
Showing posts with label Gun Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Rights. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2009
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Don't know jack about gun rights
Jack Lessenberry draws on a 1939 Supreme Court decision to support his opinion that individuals do not have a right to firearms. Apparently, he rejects the right to protect oneself from dictators and common criminals. Strangely it took 148 years from ratification of the U.S. Bill of Rights for 9 justices to determine that the natural right to bear arms really belongs to kings and governments, not individuals.
If Mr. Lessenberry were to actually read the Amendment, he would discover its reference to "the right of the people;" and were he to read The Federalist Papers, he would find this confirmed: "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, Federalist No. 46)
I would expect Mr. Lessenberry, whose pantry is stocked through his right to free speech, to recognize how that right is protected by the right to bear arms.
[Letter to the Editor - The Metro Times. Published 05/02/2007.]
Jack Lessenberry draws on a 1939 Supreme Court decision to support his opinion that individuals do not have a right to firearms. Apparently, he rejects the right to protect oneself from dictators and common criminals. Strangely it took 148 years from ratification of the U.S. Bill of Rights for 9 justices to determine that the natural right to bear arms really belongs to kings and governments, not individuals.
If Mr. Lessenberry were to actually read the Amendment, he would discover its reference to "the right of the people;" and were he to read The Federalist Papers, he would find this confirmed: "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, Federalist No. 46)
I would expect Mr. Lessenberry, whose pantry is stocked through his right to free speech, to recognize how that right is protected by the right to bear arms.
[Letter to the Editor - The Metro Times. Published 05/02/2007.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)