To e-mail us: editor@corporatemofo.com!

Note: Because we don't want spambots to pick your address off of our pages, we're no longer printing our readers' e-mail addresses with their letters —ed.

Open Fire

[Re: The Second Amendment]

In the eighteenth century, the most sophisticated piece of personal armament was the Ferguson breech-loading flintlock. In the eighteenth century, the most outlandish personal speech was calling King George a doodie-head. In the eighteenth century, the most wacky religions were "Protestants" and "Jews" and "Catholics" and even the occasional "Hindu" or "Muslim." In the eighteenth century, improper search and seizure meant the King's men kicking down your door and dragging you off, even if you hadn't done anything wrong. Plainly, things have changed considerably between the eighteenth century
and the twenty-first.

In the twenty-first century, we have hate groups, child pornographers, PETA, and any number of other groups that have unpopular, kooky, disgusting, or downright dangerous things to say. In the twenty-first century, we have Muslims blowing themselves up and flying planes into buildings, we have Christians shooting abortion doctors, and everything else you can imagine being done in the name of god.

In the twenty-first century, improper search and seizure gets your case thrown out of court, EVEN IF the cops find pounds upon pounds of cocaine, sleazy kiddy porn, high explosives, and detailed plans to kill the entire Denver Broncos... because the judge signed the warrant 2 minutes after they kicked down the door.

The thing is, the Constitution is just that: A 200-year-old piece of paper with words on it-words written by people, like the Bible or the script to the pilot episode of Family Ties. It's no more holy or infallible than the latest issue of Cosmopolitan or the Nicean Creed

Then why is it that the Second Amendment, the one that does the most to protect all the others, is the ONLY one that ever comes under this kind of scrutiny? Our nation's founding fathers could never have forseen crack dealers, suicide bombers, dragging men down the road behind a pickup, WTO riots, animal rights groups blowing up research labs, or any of the other things that are, sadly enough, relatively commonplace today.

So why don't we take a look at some of these OTHER amendments, too?

Oh, because we must take the good with the bad? Because the First Amendment not only protects the KKK, it also protects MY right to write this letter?

Know what? The Second Amendment protects my right to defend my home and my family from armed criminals. The ones that WON'T be turning in their high-capacity weapons if the laws change. I'd suggest you take a look at the crime rates in Australia and England. See what's going on there. I'd also suggest you take a look at which cities in America have the highest crime rates, and how it correlates with the cities with the strictest gun control legislation.

I'll give you a hint of anecdotal data: I live in a smallish town in central Montana. Nearly everyone in town hunts, and most homes in this town have at least one gun somewhere inside. The crime rate here is so low, they print the complete police blotter in the paper once a week. It
usually runs about four inches long. It includes speeding tickets. That's city, county, AND highway patrol for this area.

—Lyle

Dear Corporate Socialist,

Your ranticle on the Second Amendment is crap.

The Constitution is not a "living document" written on an Etch-A-Sketch for liberal socialists to reinterpret at will.

When the 2nd refers to "the people" it means The People; citizens. All the sophistry of you and the ACLU won't change that. The natural human right to self-defense supercedes even the 2nd Amendment. As the typical IGNORANT liberal is emotionally-driven but fact-crippled, it
would be useless to point out data that guns save far more lives than they take. Additionally, without even a rudimentary background in American and World histories, economics, the history of firearms and some understanding of human nature, it's not worth the expenditure of energy to debate a liberal mindset.

(Since you don't have facts or salient examples on YOUR side, you're not going to change THIS
libertarian's mindset either, so we'll call it a draw.)

You've decided to make your stand with those who betray personal responsibility and blindly trust government. So be it.

Regal-sounding decrees about who should or should not be allowed to own firearms, or which types of firearms, reflect the beginning strands of the very tyrannical thinking the Founding Fathers sought to place in check. It's your right to defame them because they were—in your humble opinion—not perfect human beings, but they're wayyyy superior to Stalin, Lenin, Chairman Mao, Marx and other communist heroes.

P.S. you wrote: "The thing is, the Constitution is just that: A 200-year-old piece of paper with words on it—words written by people, like the Bible or the script to the pilot episode of Family Ties." And yet, I'm sure you believe that global warming is very real and actually happening. Why? Because a bunch of "scientists" (with a poorly hidden socialist agenda) wrote down some things on some papers and created some computer models showing global warming. Never mind that these same scientists have admitted their data is "shaky at best," I'm sure you're already gung-ho behind the movement to ban the internal combustion engine based on nothing more than
propaganda.

P.S.S. If you want to pay more than lip service to the idea of a non-dogmatic way of looking at things, start with the guy in the mirror.

—Ben

I love when those interpreting the 2nd Amendment always pull out the "they didn't have semi-automatic weapons in 1776" clause. And I totally agree! So, since they also didn't have television, the internet, and the printing press was almost the size of a one story flat, I think the freedom of the press should amended to only freedom to those media groups who use a large, bulky, 18th century printing presses as well. Since we are going to be amending the Constitution anyway—what's one more amendment?

—Damon Harper

The right to free speech is a lot like the right to guns. When you will really need it, it will be gone. If you keep it around, you will likely never need it. If you eliminate the right to free speech, what will go is the KKK Nazi stuff. What also will go is stuff that might compromise national security. Over time though, abusive elements may creep into government, which now has the ability to put down any speech that criticizes it. Right now the right to free speech isn't critically needed. Scandals and abuses in the past decades have been limited to blowjobs and shuffling through papers in campaign opponents hotels. Right now freedom to own guns isn't critically needed either. Even Thomas Jefferson admitted that a government is allowed a wide leeway before rebellion is permissible.

Why should modern weapons be allowed? (Semi automatic weapons by the way are hardly modern.) Despite your comparisons of the founding fathers to the editors of cosmo, they were actually intelligent rational people who tried to set down universal rights that would last well into the future. They even set up systems so that any possible mistakes they made could be rectified. But you imply that they had no idea guns would become more efficient?

Finally although gun controls apply to citizens, they do not apply to government. Years down the road when government has been something that protects its own power instead of the rights of the people, I hope the citizens won't be too outgunned by a government with the vast resources of the military.

—Alex

Almost a good argument for throwing out a portion of the constitution. I suppose that we can toss out the first also because there's plenty of smart people running around knowing what's best for us little people that we don't actually NEED freedom of speech anymore. Freedom of speech just leads to hate speech and hurt feelings anyhow.

And of course the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances is out too, as government knows what's good for us better than we do. Of course Bill Clinton showed that religion is no match for a well driven tank so why bother with that?

You spineless cowards that bend over and spread your cheeks every time more civil liberties are taken away make me sick.

—Doug Evans

Sir,I read your article and must disagree with your opinion. Do we not have the right as a nation to defend ourselves against foreign aggressors? If we do have that right as a sovereign nation, then as its citizens we must also have that same right to defend ourselves. That individual right to have the means nesseccary for self protection against all those who would harm us as individuals as well as a community. I realize that this is a modern world,but the U.S. has been proven to no longer be the pillar of safety. We have no government supplied security that is always there to protect the lady down your street from having her purse snatched,much less than having cities attacked from above.It is the ultimate responcibility of each and every one of us individuals to provide for safety of not only ourselves,but the community in which we live.It is a right and much more than that,it is the right to have that responcibility.

Thank you for alloing me to voice my opinion.

—Mike Hughes

I'm going to hazard a guess that, having just taken up arms to do anything BUT "keep the government safe," the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment knew full well that, despite their best intentions, the government might get out of control at some point. History teaches us that removing the weaponry from the citizens is the first move of would-be dictators. There aren't enough anti-tank rockets to fire at all of us, and teflon bullets in the populace's hands would definately make even the most fanatical soldier stop to ponder the wisdom of an order to accost the civillians. I would hope that US troops would refuse to fire on US citizens, but I'm not going to count on it.

What to do about gun-toting fools and criminals? Simple: Enforce the laws already on the books, which already prohibit pretty much everything everyone complains about. 95% of all gun crime is commited with already-illegal weapons. Hyperbole aside, demonstrate how more laws, more restrictions, more nannying from above will help this situation? Those 5%, man—they're a REAL threat.

Must everything in the whole fucking world be built to accomidate - nay, *coddle* - the lowest common denominator in all cases? I'm just really out of patience with that crap.

Thanks for your time,

—John

Hi Dumbass!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=state

—Andrew Farrington

First let me tell me where I stand on the second amendment. I believe that if it means that we can have guns then we can have guns and if it means that we can't have guns then we can't have guns. If we can determine that what it says is not what we want it to say then we can change it. The method for doing that is in the Constitution.

As for what it means, back when I was young and hopeful I believed that the discussion that was going on was healthy and informative and that thru the dialogue people would work out what was right, they would find what it means. I was wrong. I realize now that first someone has an opinion about guns and based on that, they take a stand about the second amendment. It doesn't do any good to discuss the meaning of the wording of the Constitution if what's driving you is a love or hate of guns. There is no exchange of views here. No one is looking for the truth. Most importantly, no one is going to change their opinion about guns and therefore no one is going to change their opinion about the second amendment.

If you really want to know what that passage of the Constitution means, it is possible and it's very easy. The people who wrote it centuries ago wrote lots of other stuff. They even wrote about the Constitution. They wrote letters to each other and to other people, and some of them wrote things for publication. Much of this material is available on the internet. But if you don't feel comfortable trusting a medium where basically anyone can create anything and publish it for the world to see, you can pry yourself away from the computer and go to the local library where they still have books.

Back when I was young and hopeful I would quote chapter and verse in chats and forums. People were more likely to respond to a remark about their mothers relationship with a farm animal than to consider what 'someone said someone said'. That surprised me a little but I figured if I did some looking and just showed some people where they could find the information that they might go read it. No.

I don't bother anymore. The most I will do is tell someone that it's out there. If you want to know what they meant when they wrote the Second Amendment, you can find out. Absolutely, without question, you can know what they meant when they penned those words. Do you want to?

—Eric Johnston

Amusingly written and balls-on accurate. Bravo!

—JT

I just wanted to point out what I believe to be an inaccuracy in your article. You state:

" 'A well-regulated militia.' Simple enough. This tells us that what we're discussing is a militia, or a part-time civilian military organization like the Marine Corps Reserve or the Knights of Columbus. Note the compound adjective "well-regulated." This implies that the militia is subject to the rule of law, that is, military discipline—some sort of structure of officers and enlisted men with penalties for disobeying orders."

Look up regulated in a dictionary. There are a couple of meanings, one of which is: To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning. In short, "well-regulated" means a well trained militia, not that they are subject to some sort of law. I'm not a gun nut. I don't own a gun. I don't know that anyone has a right to an assault rifle, but the right to bear arms is just that, a right.

And if you think that guns have anything to do with crime:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html#1

Best regards,
Mack Hooper

Like most overly educated sheep you miss the big picture. It is an idividual right by its placement and position in the bill of rights. Any early reading of the federalist papers or other documents on record of the events surrounding the constitution bear this out. Ask the people of Iraq and other oppressed nations about rights and priviliges.

—Jack Miller

Hey—

"Fun with the SECOND AMENDMENT" is to date, the best article I've ever read on
the topic. Intelligent, non-pandering, concise and logical.

Keep it up.

—Rob Lovejoy

you guys rock.
keep up the... rockin.
:)

—Ben

Hmm, here's a thought: if people disagree with the 2nd Amendment, why not just amend the Constitution to clarify whether there is a personal right to keep and bear arms? After all, we amended the Constitution *TWICE* to institute Prohibition, then repeal it. . . But I forget, that would make sense, and thus obviously cannot be done!

—Eric Lee Green

ok, I realize our politics are probably on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, but damn, that was a funny article - Nicely done you pinko commie.

—Chuck N.

Ken —

I discovered your site after your article "Fun with the Second Amendment" was posted on DemocraticUnderground.com. I like your site. I bookmarked it. I'll come back.

But I disagree with the reasoning of your gun article. I think it's a murkier issue. Here's the post and my reply.

Cheers!

The author says:


The first part of the sentence is, "A well-regulated militia."
Simple enough. This tells us that what we're discussing is a
militia.


It's not simple. The sentence says that the need for a militia is
the REASON for granting the right to bear arms. It does NOT say
that everything that follows is understood only in the context of
a militia. It does not say clearly whether it is an individual or
group right. Because militias in that day were composed of
citizens who owned their own arms, there was no controversy over
this issue. There is today. That's what he claims to be
addressing.


The second part of the sentence is "being necessary to the
security of a free state." This is what we grammar Nazis call a
"subordinate clause." This particular subordinate clause sets up a
conditional sort of situation...


Actually, the militia is given as the REASON for granting a right
to bear arms. It does NOT say that the right is conditional. If
the author thinks so, he should explain the syntax, since that's
what the article is supposed to be about.


The need for a milita is an obsolete reason for granting a right
to bear arms. But the amendment does NOT say "So long as a militia
is needed" or specify that the right to bear arms is limited to
their use as part of a "well-regulated militia." The amendment, in
fact, DOES appear to apply to Billy Joe and his buddies shooting
their AR-15s at woodchucks". All rights have to be balanced
against other rights, but the author doesn't show that the right
is restricted in any way.


The crux of the argument over the second amendment is logical, not
syntactical. The Bill of Rights assumes that national defense is
composed of state militias, and that those militas are composed of
individuals who own their own weapons. The question is whether the
right is made conditional on those assumptions. I don't see the
opening clauses as specifying a condition — only adding an
unecessary justification.


In fact, after claiming to use grammar to interpret the second
amendment, the author then mocks the whole idea of interpreting
the amendment by saying:


all the constitutional scholars in the world sitting around trying
to apply its antiquated terminology to our modern world is
like...the Catholic Church disallowing birth control based on
something Thomas Aquinas wrote.


"Interpreting antiquated terminology" is needed to defend all our
constitutional rights. It is not easy, but it can be done, and
should not be belittled.


I agree with the author that (1) arms are more than just guns, and
that people do not have a right to own any type of weapon they
feel like, (2) that guns can be regulated in many ways without
denying anyone's rights, and that (3) the militias mentioned in
the second amendment are state-sponsored and do not refer to the
anti-state "militas" that you see today. But Mr. Mondschein is
really not a grammar Nazi, and like Frank DeFord, is someone who
only pretends to be literate and just isn't called on it.


Note: Hope I'm not offending anyone too much or contributing to a
flame war. I don't usually post on gun issues, and I personally
don't own a gun. But I have struggled a lot with the second
amendment recently. It's not cut and dried, and I'm sympathetic to
those who see an individual right granted.

—Jack Neefus

Ken,

A little early in the morning to be smoking crack, isn't it? Why only lever-action, small magazine, etc? Would it make any difference to the victims of the "Beltway Snipers", or their loved ones? Would the survivors loss be less painful, and their grief easier to bear, had the victims died from a head-shot fired from a single-shot rifle? Are they *more* dead, having been hit with a single bullet to the head from an AR-15 with a 20 or 30-round magazine than they would be from a single bullet to the head from a single-shot bolt action rifle? No. Pretty silly to associate lethality and magazine size. Pretty much like dictating that all automobiles have a standard-transmission, as that would cut down on traffic deaths.

If you want to remove the second-amendment, how about we do away with the first? Or, perhaps the whole "Bill of Rights" (notice that last word. It ain't "privileges", smart-guy). Well regulated, registered and controlled by WHO? You? The local political appointee Chief of Police? Ted Kennedy? So, if you're "connected" (Wm. Rasberry), you "get the privilege of self defense". Rasberry thinks nobody but himself and the cops should have guns, and he's not too sure about the cops. He did shoot someone trespassing in his back-yard pool, though. I suppose he's qualified. Kennedy thinks nobody should have the right of self-defense, but his body-guards carry sub-machine guns. Perhaps his life is more important to the well being of the country than mine, or yours. Of course he just uses his car to kill people.

But wait, there's more: "..."assault rifles," which (to simplify the matter beyond all recognition) are defined as semiautomatic weapons that hold more than 10 bullets per magazine." That may be *your definition*. The federal government defines "assault rifles" an a light, magazine fed rifle of small or medium caliber, being capable of selective-fire (single, burst, or fully automatic). What the anti-gun folks call an "assault rifle" seems to be anything with a pistol-grip, a visible magazine, or(God forbid) ANY black plastic. All that stuff is cosmetic, as you're just as dead from a bullet out of a piece of pipe, but it gets the camels nose in the tent, eh?

Again, you are trying to define "what people *need*". What gives you the qualifications to determine what anyone, other than yourself *needs*? I thought it was only those elected bastards in D.C. that were special enough to know what's best for each of us(after conferring with their campaign contributors and lobbyists, of course). Personally, I've determined that people only *need* the equivalent of a Geo Metro. No more SUVs, pickup-trucks, muscle-cars, or anything that will do more than 60mph, downhill, with a tailwind. I want all the rest of the vehicles off the road, now. Of course I'll still ride my Ducati, but I know what's best for the rest of you. Sounds a bit like CorpMoFo!

I love you, man! But you're not getting my Guinness! Write about what you know, and that does not include firearms, aviation, physics, or expressionist painters.

Cheers!

—Chris

6 million of your ancenstors trusted the government to only have guns, and look what happened to them. Screw you. We'd still be under the English Crown if it weren't for arms. The more guns I have the better!

—Derec Aujay

[Um… if Hitler killed them, they couldn't be my ancestors, could they?—Ken]

Dear Corporate Motherfuckers,

I appreciated your piece on the Second Amendment. However, I would point out that I have never felt that, just because something comes with responsibilities, it should be a privilege rather than a right. Conversely, just because we have a right to something doesn't mean it shouldn't come with responsibilities—which is where I think the "citizen militias" go wrong with guns. Similarly, organizations such as the NRA (and the ACLU, for that matter) often have to reinterpret the Constitution way to the other side of their opponents' interpretations in order to have some bargaining room.

That said, I think that local and state governments are perfectly justified in setting _certain_ limits on what firearms we can own (but not on what bladed weapons we can own—and that issue doesn't get enough press). While I think weapon ownership is a right, I believe that display, loading, and use of the weapon, while also rights, should be regulated (a word that appears conspicuously in the Second Amendment itself) with training courses. It's reasonable to believe that a person who buys an assault rifle needs training in its safe and effective use—after all, how would he or she be able to hunt or defend his or her family without knowing how to use the weapon?

I also feel that this reasoning applies to motor vehicles. Because of the way the United States has built itself, transportation is a requirement. This may not be self-evident in a densely populated city with effective mass transit, such as New York, San Francisco, or Boston, but in a city like Tampa, Florida, if you don't have a car, you probably can't get a job—at least not a decent one. The buses here are not reliable, and don't have enough routes. By the same token (no pun intended), just because a person should be able to go out and purchase a car or truck doesn't mean they shouldn't be licensed. I've just never understood why licensing something automatically makes it a privilege. Consider especially the concept of "having your driving privileges taken away." This never, ever happens unless a driver violates traffic laws—in some cases, repeatedly. Now, if that person violates a non-driving law—such as robbing a bank—we don't say we're taking away their citizenship privileges; we say that they have forfeited their civil rights (though not their human rights, though this does frequently happen).

Getting back to the gun thing, I feel that the concept of militias is, as you say, outmoded. From a military standpoint, there is no way to coordinate a large group of small, separately-run groups of fighters. The reason the fireteam-platoon-brigade-regiment-army chain works is because everyone follows exactly the same protocols, which almost never happens with individual militias. Bear in mind, also, that when the Founding Fathers sat down to drink and write the Constitution (and yes, they did both at the same time... quite a lot, actually), they envisioned a government that could, and should, be completely replaced by revolution every so often. As we saw with France in the 18th and 19th centuries, this turned out to be a poor idea. That said, in the wake of the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security Acts, I believe individual citizens have a right to defend themselves from their government.

In a nutshell, weapons ownership is often a good idea, and in some cases, necessary. Weapons allow citizens to hunt for food (not everyone gets their meat from Safeway, Albertson's, or Publix), and defend themselves and their families. Transportation is always a necessity, and should therefore be a right.

Having said all that, why is there no Constitutionally guaranteed right to education? That would solve a lot of problems right there.

Best,

Perry

I enjoyed the article "Fun With the Second Amendment" and wanted to respond. The argument can be made that if you throw out the first two parts of the statement, the sentence can stand on its own, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The same can't be said for the first two parts, and they could be discarded altogether. I'm also a bit curious as to why you stopped short of examining the last part, "shall not be infringed." The subject has and will be debated over and over as long as there are people on opposite sides of the issue. In my opinion anyone seeking the true intentions of the founders in regards to the second amendment can find it in The Federalist papers. I believe the authors clearly explain that arms ownership is an individual right. While I agree with you, there should be some regulation as to what types of arms are available for private ownership, I stand firmly against any new restrictive gun laws. We have all the laws we need for gun control, maybe too many. Enforcement of existing laws is all we need. Again, it was a well written article, but could have been better researched.

—Bill

Just read your artical and found it very interesting. I am a gun owner who enjoys target shooting with both double and single action weapons semi-autos and others. I do agree with you that fully automatic weapons are not nessisary, but there is no reason to limit the amount of rounds in a magazine to ten. Some people would ask why do you need more than ten. its not a matter of need it is a matter of want. Do you wanna stop and get gas for your car every 130 miles or every 330. It dosent hurt to get it sooner but it can be annoying. The fact of the matter guns are here to stay for a while. No amount of inulting pleadin or lobbying is going to change that. might as well get used to it. there are to many risks out there for us not to be abel to arm are selves with suitable protection. I found pre-ban magazines for my gun cause you never know. I was a boy scout "always be prepaired" Be sides shooting is a great pass time.

—Travis

Is coporate mofo a joke, or do you actually sell this magazine? And where can I get it?

—Jewel

Hi,

I feel I must point out to the author of said where I feel he is incorrect. Specifically where he says that a militia is "set up to keep the state, that is, the government, safe." I believe Ken has misinterpreted this section of the Amendment to mean something other than what it does. I believe the proper interpretation is meant to be the following. Our forefathers, that is, the framers of the Constitution, were deathly afraid of forming a government, or having their government turned into, a dictatorship much like the one they had just come out from under. When it says "security of a free state," it is referring to the citizens right to protect themselves from the government and whatever army it may have, much like the colonists protected themselves from Britian and won their own independence. When the Constitution was framed, no one had any idea that we would be the world power that we are today and that the world would require such a large body of armed forces in order to maintain the sovreignity of the United States. Instead, it is my belief that they were more concerned with their own affairs and maintaining their own sovreignity from a government that might go crazy. I think that my belief can be backed up simply by reading the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence where it says "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I hope to have a reply from the author as I am interested in what he thinks about my thoughts.

Regards,
Paul Lockaby

I read your latest piece. It was pretty funny even if inaccurate. I take issue with your definition of the term "well-regulated." It is incorrect. I would suggest that you look in your Oxforddictionary. I'm sure you must have access to one. Well-regulated means trained or synchronized. It does not mean "regulated by government" as you suggest.

Furthermore, what you think is a good idea regarding the second amendment is of no concern. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. There is no "good idea" clause in the constitution that exempts us from adhering to it if we can invent something that the founders might not have considered.

The right to bear arms is an extension of your own right to defend yourself. Your right to life. The rights in the constitution are not granted by the document but merely enumerated. While they do tell government to keep its hands off our liberties, they did not create these liberties. Jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence "governments are created among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The government cannot, without fraud and force, execute powers which the people they serve do not first possess. It's quite simple really. You can't sell your neighbor's car without committing fraud and you cannot give the government powers you do not have.

Thus, the government itself may not possess firearms without committing fraud unless you can. And it cannot prevent you from owning firearms because again, this is not a power that you possess. You cannot tell your neighbor that he can't possess a firearm and you cannot give the
government such power to exercise on your behalf.

I would suggest that you read over the last Supreme Court case involving the second amendment, US v Miller, decided in 1939. The court performed a thorough bit of research concluding that the militia was the entire collection of people amenable to serve in the military. And at the time they were expected to bring their own guns. The militia act of 1792 defines the militia as all men between the ages of 17 and 45 who did not object for reasons of conscience. You are the militia as am I.

There is another case in the 5th district I believe which directly opposes the 9th circuit's reading of the constitution. This is good news for those of us who want the constitution literally interpreted because it is likely that we will finally see the Supreme Court decide a second amendment case in our lifetime. As you probably know the Supreme Court doesn't generally accept a case unless there is disagreement in the district courts.

Here's what Justice Thomas said about the second amendment in his concurring opinion in Printz Sheriff Mack v US which overturned the "unfunded mandate" portions of the Brady Bill: "If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms 'has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of a republic.' 3 J. Story, Commentaries ß1890, p. 746 (1833).

It is quite likely that we will finally get a court ruling which states what we all have known for quite some time: The second amendment guarantees the right for citizens to own firearms on a personal basis and not just those deemed acceptable by the state. As US v Miller interpreted the amendment, firearms which served a military purpose were exactly the type of arms being protected. That would of course mean fully automatic weapons today.

I hope that you don;t dismiss this email out of hand simply because my view disagrees with yours. I would urge you to take a second look and consider what you've already written on the subject. You make an excellent point:

"Once the judge handed down his decision, patriotic defenders of our right to own high-powered machines of destruction like assault rifles and SUVs and McDonald's coffee and Barbara Streisand albums began comparing him to the Nazis—and rightfully so, since the Nazis were noted for their enthusiasm in taking guns away from people and giving them to other people who used them to shoot Jews."

You may have been completely facetious here but it is absolutely true that this is what occurred in Hitler's Germany though perhaps not in the way you might think. Exemptions to the gun laws were for citizens only. Non-citizens were not allowed to own firearms. And so rather than passing new gun-laws to further restrict ownership, Jews, Jehovah's witnesses, Gays, and other undesirables were claimed to be non-citizens. And then marked for death. This was easy to do since they had been stripped of their guns.

Before you say that it canít happen here, the exact same thing DID happen here when the Dred V Scott decision was handed down. Justice Teney, who didnít have even a little bit of constitutional support for this position, ruled that free blacks were non-citizens and instantly took them from the category of protected citizens with rights, into the abyss of non-human status since the constitution does not provide protection only to citizens but to people. The doctrine of "citizen" status as a guide for government behavior arose from racist anti-gun laws and court rulings which attempted to place rights out of reach from the freed slave. For an excellent article citing the laws and cases, read Clayton Cramer's "The Racist Roots of Gun Control." You can find it in many places on the internet.

Good luck,

Rick Fisk

Dear Editor,

Ken Mondschein's "Fun with the Second Amendment" was very amusing, and even accurate in parts. May I respond?

All I can find in the Constitution and Founders' documents about governments and guns is that all the people are members of the unorganized militia (under US Code Title 10, Section 311) and that their right to own and carry those guns "shall not be infringed," which means "interfered with, taken away, or controlled."

I have read the Constitution. I have read The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. I have visited www.Guncite.com and read the Founders' words concerning militias and the right to own guns. The militia is you and me, the people. "Well-regulated" in the 18th Century meant "well-equipped and trained, well-functioning," not "tightly controlled." We the people were meant to own any gun that the government soldier of our day can own, because someone in that government might one day decide that any of us, like the Cherokees, the Jews, intellectuals in Cambodia, Kurds in Iraq, are "undesirables."

I urge you to visit www.jpfo.org and www.keepandbeararms.com and learn about the history of gun control and its hideous consequences.

I do not hunt. That's not what the right to keep and bear arms is about. I'm not a member of an organized, government-supervised militia. That's not what the right to keep and bear arms is about. I don't plan to fight for Big Oil or Big Government. That's not what the right to keep and bear arms is about. I do own an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a few dozen standard-capacity 30-round magazines. You know, the kind of gun with which residents and store owners each defended their entire block of shops and homes from looters, rioters and arsonists during the Los Angeles riots? I don't know whether a lever-action rifle would command the same respect. I don't intend to find out. I will be keeping my AR-15 no matter what the Ninth Circuit Court or the Supreme Court rules. Because it is my right. I had no intention of getting one until I heard about the misnamed "assault weapons" ban. If would-be tyrants fear them, all the more reason to have one in safe hands.

The militia(s) that inspire such dread are ordinary citizens like you and me who prepare to defend selves, family, neighborhood, and nation. The Civilian Defense Force was active in many states in the time after World War I. It was an organized militia composed of members of the larger unorganized militia (the general population). The need for military training among ordinary citizens became apparent, and many men attended. They were glad they did when the United States entered World War II: Whose chance of survival and victory was greater, the green draftee's, or the trained citizen-soldier with experience in shooting rifles (bolt-action, lever-action and semiauto), handguns and, yes, machine guns? "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." -Tench Coxe, prominent Federalist and friend of James Madison (author of the Bill of Rights), The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

People try to maintain that the Second Amendment protects only the right to own flintlock muskets, the state of the art "assault weapon" of the 1700s. If it's reasonable to try to restrict me to 18th- or 19th-Century firearms technology, shouldn't they restrict you to hand-cranked rotary sheet-fed presses? If not, why not?

Here are two letters I send to gun control advocates. I hope Mr. Mondschein will do me the courtesy of reading them all the way through. By the way, I have known some "Bubba" gun owners with room-temperature IQs. In my 25-year experience with guns, they have been a tiny minority. Some are MENSA-eligible.

Thank you for offering the opportunity to be heard.

—Jack Harbinger

Mondschein's article is interesting but based on false premises and faulty history. I have an inalienable natural right to defend myself. So do you. I cannot legitimately deprive you of life or liberty or property (the fruit of your labor), nor can you so deprive me. We create (via the Social Contract) government to protect us in the enjoyment of our natural rights. But government does not GIVE us those rights; they are God-given, natural, existing anterior to government. As I lack the right to prevent you from defending yourself, I cannot give that right to government, as I do not possess it in the first place.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment would not deprive me of the right of self-defense (and logically the right to acquire the necessary implements of self-defense). But an attempt to repeal such a guarantee of a natural right would signal a serious violation of the Social Contract, and might be one of a "long train of abuses" justifying revolution—which is the final natural right. See the Declaration of Independence or John Locke's "Of Civil Government."

—Doc McBride

Let's start with recycling. Most recycling operations in the U.S. not only cost more dollars than the original production of the items, they expend more energy, resulting in more damage to the enviornment. Confused hippies like to recycle because it makes them "feel" good. It sounds, well mabye not "revolutionary" but at least "progressive" so who gives a shit if it actually damages the enviornment? As to guns and government, the same folks who tell me that Bush and Ashcroft and "Big Corporations" want to make us all slaves of a military/police state tell me in the same breath that "only the police and military should have guns". Huh? Stupid to "resist" government with small arms? I guess the Viet Cong were to stupid to realize how stupid they were. They should have been "smart" like European Jews who waddled off to the camps like so many millions of barnyard animals.

—Rob O'Rourke
former hippy

Ken certainly enjoys displaying his ignorance in your "publication". His ignorance of history is exposed when he claims "well-regulated" has something to do with government regulations. It means "well trained" i.e. practiced in the proper use of arms. He flunks English grammar too. You can remove a "subordinate clause" without changing the meaning of a sentence. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That sentence is just fine by itself. The subordinate clause, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" adds information about the value of the main sentence. It reminds us of the value of an armed populace as a resource to repel enemies...foreign and domestic.

Ken shows his ignorance of the Bill of Rights too. In every instance, the "people" references to the rights of an individual that may not be trampled by the government. The states are delegated limited "powers" within the amendments to the Constitution. The federal government my only exercise the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Sadly, activist judges have seen fit to permit unconstitutional legislation from Congress to stand. Our rights as individuals are trampled daily. The federal and state governments are permitted "powers" far beyond the enumerated scope of the Constitution.

Ken continues his attempt at stand up humor. He cites the state of the art in rifles at the time the Bill of Rights was conceived. Muzzle-loaded smoothbore muskets and the Kentucky long rifle. In his mind, technology is required to be frozen time. The founding fathers had no way to conceive of radio, television, computers, the internet and high speed printing presses. Exercise of the 1st amendment must be limited to Gutenberg hand presses and distribution performed by hand or on horseback. We must reign in the press. Absurdity illustrated with absurdity. American citizens should be able to purchase any weapon carried by any member of the U.S. military. Specifically any rifle, pistol or handgun that can be carried and operated by a single person. Anti-tank missiles are probably well beyond the discretionary budget available to most Americans.

The Swiss model of militia is excellent. Every American should be required to own, maintain and be proficient in the use of the current rifle carried by U.S. infantry. A M-16 rifle and a minimum of 1000 rounds of ammunition for each able-bodied male. A "shall issue" concealed weapons permit program should be the standard in every state and recognized with the same level of reciprocity as a driver's license. Issuing the permit is conditioned on a demonstration of firearms safety knowledge, marksmanship and awareness of laws restricting where firearms may be carried (courts, prisons, juvenile detention facilities). Schools should provide firearms safety training in elementary school and markmanship in high schools. Such training would reduce the incidence of "accidents" caused by ignorance of basic safety practices.

Ken is apparently ignorant of proper deer hunting hardware too. You aren't permitted to hunt deer with a .223 caliber "assault rifle". Most states limit you to a 5 shot magazine. Deer hunters usually take a scoped .308 or 30-30 bolt-action rifle. Deer are typically taken at distances of about 300 yards with a single shot. The term "assault rifle" has a very special meaning as well. It refers to lightly loaded cartridges such as the .223 or Soviet 7.62X39 that can be fired from a fully automatic rifle with a limited amount of muzzle rise. In the Vietnam War, the standard M14 rifle fired full power .308 rounds in full-auto mode. It was simply too difficult to control that much power. The lightly loaded "assault rifle" cartridges were invented to solve that problem. Using the phrase "high-powered rifle" and M-16 in the same sentence is a misnomer.

Ken should move to England where the legal system and gun laws are exactly to his liking. Remember the old saw, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"? That's England. Only the government and the gangs have guns now. We don't want that model in America. Our 2nd amendment is present to prevent the government from foisting such a nightmare on our country.

—Mark Edwards

You can twist it any way you like, just read it and it's self-explanatory. I
suppose you'd prefer the UN to our current government. The only thing scarier than
a filthy hippie is a pious liberal. Thank you in advance for not procreating.

—David Sifers

Dear Liberal pinko tree hugger; 73% of all Americans polled believe the Second Amendment protects the right of individual persons to own and carry firearms. If you think you can get the Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to change that in our lifetimes, you are dreaming. Should the RKBA be on par with the 1st Amendment? Feature this: The ACLU has 250,000 dues paying members. The NRA has very nearly FIVE MILLION! You've got a lot of work to do! You should start by making sure that ALL Democratic party candidates for the House, Senate and White House run on the platform of repealing the Second Amendment! Be sure to put up lots of billboards in places like West Virgina and all of the deep south to to make sure the people know! Please! Liberal Democrats will repeal the Second Amendment! Spread the Word! Pretty please! With a cherry on top!!!

—Rob

Dear Sir or Madame,

You make the same mistake most liberals make when discussing the 2nd Amendment and the BOR in general. The BOR doesn't 'grant' anything. It 'enumerates' (you may need to look that word up.) certain rights. Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't make it proper for the Government to ban guns anymore than repealing the 8th Amendment would make it proper for the Government to engage in boiling people in oil for the crime of burglary.

As far as your statement that: "Heck, if we relied on citizen militias today, Canada could take us over." A quote from a Japanese General during WW2 is instructive. When asked if the Japanese would ever invade mainland USA he replied "Are you crazy? There would be a scoped deer rifle behind every blade of grass!" A conversation between a Swiss General and a Nazi General is also instructive. The German asked the Swiss what they would do if Hitler sent a million men marching across the Swiss border. The Swiss Generals reply was: "We would all shoot twice, and then go home." Ask some Viet Nam vet how well the American Army faired against a rag-tag citizen militia in the 60's. The answer you get might surprise you as well. The more I read what passes for modern liberal thought, the more I become convinced that it's some kind of as yet unidentified psychosis. Logical thought seems to be impossible for them

Sincerely yours,

Bruce Elmore

There's a lot of ways to go on this one, and frankly, I think regionalisms have an awful lot to do with it. It's well done, though I disagree with you on almost every major point.

Salient points:

1. Large-capacity magazines are important for self-defense in areas where gangs/multiple assailants are the norm. This is especially true for people who want to carry a slightly less macho caliber. The point to a handgun in self-defense is a) you don't know who's carrying one, thus forcing a social predator into a "who's carrying" guessing game, and b) it equalizes the chances of an individual in a crowd. This, of course, has its down side in places where the majority of people are known to be disarmed, aka Columbine, etcetera, but is otherwise a advantage in deterring attacks, particularly on women, who are, generally screwed when trying to fend of a male with 40% more skeletal muscle.

Regionally, here in the southwest, guns are an inherent part of our culture, as is being raised to use them responsively. We also tend to be the only segment of the country with a harshly-imposed death sentence, too—abuse of what we regard as a basic right results in draconian consequences. Most people in your neck of the woods are as uncomfortable with that as we are with the idea that guns should be tightly monitored and controlled, which, imho, is the best argument one can possibly make for local interpretation and enforcement of the laws. We're cool, and you're cool, you don't want to have to live with our laws, and we will likely openly revolt rather than live with yours... but we can all kick back with some beer etcetera, instead, and be happy, because we're not being shoehorned into some idiot's one-size-fits-all law.

2. Regarding the purpose of a militia: it's two-fold. The first is, a militia is the body of the armed public, which is called up in case, say, China invades and we're in deep poopoo for personnel. Not likely right this minute, granted, but the Constitution is intended to look towards long term possibilities, which is why we have the oldest government on earth. In those times of emergency, you have to show up with what you've got. The second is, that an armed militia guards against open tyranny in government. Waco aside (because I am no shortwave radio nutjob, but if you've been sold CNN's version of what happened there, then getting into arguments regarding obviously excessive force ain't going to get us anywhere), I lived a hundred miles north of Belgrade during the Kosovo war, and directly after the first Balkan war in the 90s. Milosevic stayed in power for one, and only one reason: the average member of the populace had no access to a rifle and banana clip. All the hardline zenophobic Chetnik gangster types in power lived in the fancy houses on the hill... in the exact words of a good friend of mine who is a Serb, "hey, Cowboy, it's not like we don't know where they live."

Where you have a real point, and one that I've been mulling over recently, is not really about guns, but about body armor. The US military has got its brainboys working on body armor that will effectively make most small arms obsolete. When that happens, we're back to knights and peasants, with the peasants standing zero chance whatsoever against the guys in the plate steel. Granted, our military culture is steeped in the idea of not becoming an arm of domestic political control.

So what, over the long term, guarantees that somebody doesn't turn around and pull a Caesar? So far, our solution has been civilian ownership of arms, which guarantees that the Powers that Might Become (tm) will never have an army big enough to do to us what Milosevic and Hussein did and do to their people on a daily basis. And we have that right now. A couple hundred bucks, and a federal firearms license, and you can own practically any weapon you want... but if somebody near you commits a crime with 20mm mortar shells in your neighborhood, bet your sweet ass that the guys from BATF **will** be by to check the serial numbers on your shells...

—Russell Mitchell

You know they tried to take away guns in Australia. What happened you ask those who made the decision said it worked but the reality is that the honest citizens gave up there guns and the criminal element didn't. OOPS!

I don't hunt and I don't own a gun. I don't even enjoy firing them but if you want an idea on how to get rid of guns here it is. Don't take away the guns just stop making them for the masses, except for a limited amount of hunting weapons (bolt action rifels double berril shotguns). Have the government confiscate any gun committed in a crime so perhaps in 50 years the idiots who commit crimes wont have the option to use a gun and the intelligent people that love and respect there guns will be able to properly defend themselves. Plus those who properly respect the power of a gun will be able to teach there children how to use it and respect it before it's passed down to them.

My two cents

Joe Ries

"But should the right to own them be in there with our right to free speech and the right of women to vote? Nuh-uh."

Oh teach us great sage of our time! Oh greater than Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson, and a bunch of other Thomases that founded our land! Without the right to own guns, we have no more guarentee than a wink and a nod from our government that our rights will be in place 50 years from now. Being able to defend oneself isn't a right given and taken away by me, the government, or liberal web-weenies. It is a birthright, and mock it as you will, you will be hiding under my wife's dress if you're in the same restaurant with a crazed lunatic that's executing patrons one by one. She'll be the one with the 9mm in her purse, ready to defend herself. That's one more for women's rights. Liberal.

...and by 'liberal' I mean 'flaming gimp'.

—H3O

Dear Editor,

I would like to take just a moment to chime in on the article I read about gun-ownership. My purpose in writing is not to convince or persuade you, or anyone for that matter, to believe other than what you do- I think people are going to believe what they believe, because that's the way they see it, and that's who they are. I wish only to pose a couple of questions that I don't know the answers to. I have suspicions, but that is not the point. Please take a minute and actually examine what the answer is any one of these.

1) Since everyone knows that the US Military branches could easily kick any number of Montana militia's asses, no matter what type of arsenal they can amass on their salaries, what then does the government (or average citizen) care what types of gun one man owns? Surely they don't feel threatened, so why the constant chipping away of individuals rights?

2) Is a small magazine (fewer bullets) firearm of any given caliber somehow less dangerous in the hands of a wacko hell-bent on murder than the same gun with 2 or 5 more bullets in it? Wouldn't that wacko be smart enough to have another clip with her (or him)?

3) Will today's unlawful gun owners, such as inner city pimps or ex-cons on welfare, or angry white kids in Colorado, gladly line up to be on the national registry of arms? If they break the law today, why not tomorrow?

4) What would the government do with a national registry of firearms? Is it seriously just to know where they are, and to whom they were sold? (That's not much purpose for something that would take so much manpower and tax money to compile, maintain, enforce, etc.—maybe just another poor investment, fiscally speaking. In business, we call that Poor R.O.I. Society would be better served using that money to hire schoolteachers)

5) Why is that anti-gun rights writers propose that "The Founding Fathers weren't divinely inspired geniuses" on this issue, but that on "our right to free speech and the right of women to vote" the same constitutional authors really hit a homerun? (Come on, that's not even close to unbiased)

6) Have the governments of most countries that outlawed guns last century ultimately treated their citizenry with the utmost respect, or was freedom often compromised?

7) Why are all caricatures of gun-owners associated with beer and Nascar? (What do you have against beer?)

Just some thoughts. Everyone should believe what they choose, but people really should really picture how their neighborhood would end up if the only gun owners were the under-funded cops, and the criminals. Please don't say "let's just raise taxes, better arm the cops, hire more staff and get tougher vehicles like tanks for them to combat the bad guys"—that sounds an awful lot like China or 1950's USSR. Personally, I think that the Constitution was created to LIMIT federal govt. powers, and that people should be able to abort pregnancies, drive fast, smoke cigarettes or pot, own guns, fuck prostitutes, burn flags, smear feces on their genitals IF THEY WANT TO. Take Alaska - nearly everyone there carries a handgun or owns a firearm. There's virtually no personal assault, robbery, rape etc. They live by "I don't mess with you and you don't mess with me, because you will be shot". Not bad.

But, then again, I'm just a conspiracy theorist, right-wing nut, so what can I possibly know?

—Mark Moad

Your article about the Second amendment is utterly offensive.

Why do you insist on always associating gun lovers with cheap, watery, domestic beer?

I love guns, but I can't stand Coors, Bud, or even Miller light.

I drink Fat Tire, Full Sail, and, on occasions when I'm feeling a little more mainstream, a Guinness or two.

Your stereotyping is truly insulting and you should learn how to articulate an argument without grouping everyone into specific beer drinking sub-sets of redneckdom.

Sheesh.

—Adam Farver

[That's OK—you should see what I write about liberal pansies and their fucking white wine spriters.]

Brilliant satire! Now why don't you just trot that little socialist rat bastard of an editor out here? It's target practice time...

—Bill Donohue

"Fun With the Second Amendment," even though we thought it was a pretty moderate sort of piece, generated a shitstorm of controversy/

Oh yes!, it was about as moderate as any elitist liberal is capable of writing, and although I am sure you would call it "Tongue in Cheek" it's still dripping with the same condescending tone and sarcasm that all of us ignorant gun loving rednecks have come to expect. Let's go on and look at it point by point!

Our inbox rapidly filled up with people telling us just how America's eternal freedom depends on their collection of functional howitzers. Therefore, instead of writing incompetent opinions on
constitutional law (here's a very good one, if you'd like to read it), we thought we should explain what we're about

C'mon, you can do better than that! For every scholarly treatise you can come up with to support your position, I can come up with ten to refute it. By the way, most of mine will be from either judges or people who are recognized by the vast majority of academia as the foremost experts on constitutional law in the country.

2. We Don't Hunt

Tofu doesn't run away,

Good thing for you that it doesn't because if it did you would not have the skills to catch it or track it down. Since most liberals are totally inept at providing themselves with sustenance of any kind, (animal or vegetable) any future acts of terrorism should concentrate on shutting down the restaurants and supermarkets for a month. It would be much more effective than say? Gunfire!

and the biggest animals in my neighborhood are the subway rats. Besides which, since we believe so strongly in animal rights, it goes without saying that deer have as much right to live and be free and run

Of course they have a right to be free and run, like right into the path of your Mercedes or into the garden to munch on your two hundred dollar shrubs. Amazing how many bleeding-heart liberals reassess their personal feelings about deer when it becomes a pecuniary matter!

And bullets can poke your eye out, which is what Mom always said what would happen if we played with BB guns. Speaking of which. . .

Yes, there's little doubt in my mind that most liberals always listened to their mommy, and the vast majority of them still do, albeit, tempered by regular bouts of lachrymosity.

4. We Don't Actually Know Anything About Them

Face it: Most liberals, being city-dwelling pansies

No need to state the obvious. Besides, isn't the self deprecation shtick starting to wear thin? have never actually shot a firearm. (I have. Twice. Once was black powder, which involved the distinct possibility of blowing myself up.) However, even with my limited experience in shooting, I quickly discovered that. . .

C'mon humor me just a little. Don't you think that if you went to a shooting range with someone who actually knew what he was doing, (black powder is not a good choice for an initial foray into the shooting disciplines) maybe after shooting a round of trap or skeet, or better yet sporting clays,(that's like golf for rednecks) you might find that you actually enjoyed it. You might even hit a target or two! Ohh! I forgot! The noise!

5. We Liberals Are Really, Really Nearsighted and Clumsy

Most liberals, including Yours Truly, wear really, really thick nerd glasses and are secretly afraid we'd be really lousy shots.

One of the best shots I ever saw wore glasses as thick as Coke bottles, and he once told me in a moment of weakness that he was a democrat, but promised me that whatever happened he would never ever vote for Hillary Clinton!

6. Shooting Involves Being Outside

We'd rather stay in and read Noam Chomsky

Yes, in my constant attempts to fathom the mind of a liberal I have read some of his work. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Societies was a particularly interesting tome.

and write letters to the Village Voice and work on our pasty complexions. However, no matter how liberal we are, one of the things about guns that scares us is. . .

7. We're Afraid Negroes Might Use Them Against Us

As much as we may decry any and all racism, most liberals can't name, off the top of their head, the last time they actually hung out with a black person. The hypocrisy inherent in this issue is worth a whole story, except that I'd get branded a racist and no one would ever talk to me again.

"TOUCHE"

8. We Really Wish We Were European

Because we heard that European women are easy. However, you're not allowed to have guns in Europe.

Yes, and speaking of that, are you aware that violent crime in England has skyrocketed in the past five years. The best minds in Great Britain are at a total loss to explain this phenomena. England now has the highest crime rate per capita of any western nation! I'm not kidding! You could look it up. You don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that Great Britain basically disarmed their entire population do you? DUH!!!!!!!

9. We Haven't Had Really Good Wars Recently

There are two wars we liberals really wish we'd been around for. The first is World War II, because, to judge by how we always compare everyone to Fascists, we would have loved to help defeat the Nazis (but not the Japanese, because, Pearl Harbor notwithstanding, they were the victims of racism).

Yeah, well let me tell you something Kenny, my father fought those Japanese and he confirmed you assessment that they were victims of racism. He told me he raced all over the Pacific "chasin em"

The second war we wish we'd been around for is Vietnam, but only to protest it, because nothing will ever again be as cool as the 1960s were. Also, we hear protesting the war got you laid.

Yeah, well I fought in this one, and while Bill Clinton was hiding under some rock, guys coming home from Nam were getting spit on by the same chicks who were putting out for the likes of him. I guess maybe that's where his affliction developed.

10. We Like to Legislate

The liberal solution to a problem is to pass more laws.

Always has been, always will be.

Only by constantly holding the threat of getting sued over everyone's head time can we create a just society.

Yes, I have to hand it to you there. That was a master stroke of genius on the part of the last administration to try and sue the gun manufacturers out of business. Only men like Cuomo and Clinton could come up with something that inane. Of course we shouldn't mention that it cost the tax payers millions of dollars which would have been much better spent on food stamps. Oh, by the way, all of those law suits were either overturned or thrown out of the courts. You could look it up!

11. We're Secretly Afraid We Might Shoot Someone

No! No! Bad thought!

Just remember Kenny boy, "IT'S BETTER TO BE TRIED BY TWELVE THAN CARRIED BY SIX"!

12. When I Was Just a Baby, My Momma Told Me, "Son, Always be a Good Boy, Don't Ever Play with Guns"

But I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

I refer you to my last statement!

Of course, it's obvious that the cause of gun crime isn't guns

nice of you to acknowledge that fact!

it's the fact that we live in a society where the poorest people are crammed into crummy inner-city neighborhoods and people get so fed up with all the bureaucratic bullshit they flip out on bullet-shooting sprees. Take away the guns, and they'll probably just go on thumbtack-and-Bic-pen-stabbing sprees.

Yeah, you're right Kenny, or they could just do like Lizzie Grubman and throw a hissy fit at some perceived slight by the doorman, call him white trash and back daddy's 350 horsepower Mercedes SUV into about 16 people. Is that the politically correct liberal thing to do?

Just so you should know Kenny, this letter isn't coming from a trailer park in West Virginia. It's coming from a million dollar home in Sag Harbor, New York right in the heart of the Hamptons. If you ever get out this way, look me up and I'll take you to Maidstone. The gun club, not the golf course! I have extra ear plugs.

Respectfully,(sort of)

James R. Christensen

P.S. Of course, I'm sure you understand that everything I have written here is:"Tongue in Cheek"

[Ha! You have Slayerswine's name!]

Subj: I Hate Liberals!!!

Thanks for showing us why they are so stupid.

—Michael Netherton

...conservatives do. And all the cool, dreadlocked political science majors with rich, conservative parents (because liberals are too busy protesting to get rich!) tell them guns are wrong, and they should go eat lettuce.

But funny article, anyway...keep the liberal bashing coming :)

—Eric Lund

a problem i have with the way that this subject is treated in the usa is the cowardly refusal by those who want to restrict guns to attempt to amend the constitution. the method is spelled out in the costitution and has been used before. no guts for an argument.

—gls2356

Very cleverly written. I look forward to a piece on Carl Rowan. You remember him, the liberal gun control fella who, when an intruder broke into his property, reached for a gun. Should make interesting copy.

—G.W. Arrington

In reference to "Why We Liberals Don't Like Guns"—

I loved that editorial! It was perfect to send to my gun-loving, conservative, paranoid relatives. It's a funny piece whose bottom line agrees with their opinion, yet pokes fun at their ignorance/paranoia/prejudices at the same time.

—tennillemerkle

Ken,

Once again you have made my day. I can't say I agree with your political views, but fortunately we don't have to agree. I love the fact that you make fun of you liberals as well as you make fun of us conservatives. How can people stand politics if they can't laugh at it from time to time? Great site, keep it up.

Rob Moffet

Really appreciate the honesty and candor. Great site! Some people just shouldn't be allowed to have guns. "The private ownership of arms stands next in importance to the consitution itself" (George Washington). "It is not what government did that accounts for America's greatness. It is what government was prevented from doing"

—David Graham

I agree - lets repeal the 2nd amendment; and the 1st amendment too! But wait. Then you would have to get a real job. well.. since the government would have complete authoritarian control over the unarmed masses you could apply as director of state propaganda. Life would be so much less complicated; and safer too; so long as we did everything the politicians wanted. Perhaps, the 2nd amendment was second; to protect the first.

—Erik J Reinhardt

Try living in Maine, and needing meat for your family to make the winter...not to mention people who died so idiots like you could have the freedom of choice. Imnot waiting for some pasty face idiot with a pen to pass a law that takes out the second amendment,while his only contribution to society is being a giant mouthpiece. With guns we are citizens, without guns we are subjects.

—Featherweight

If the constitution is "just a 200 year old piece of paper" I guess you wouldn't mind if the politicians just started at the top of the Amendments and started regulating your 1st amendment (like Daschle is trying to do now w/ talk radio and it's "conservative tone")? Then once they silenced everyone by law (you included), they could move on to the 2nd amendment like you want and nobody would be able to complain. I mean after all, what did those stinky, slave-fucking idiots know about "Free speech" and Oppressive governments that took all of their earnings and dictated how they should live. Oh wait, I just had 50% of my earnings taken out of my paycheck last week and I think the Supreme Court is looking into whether I should be allowed to get together w/ fellow citizens and advocate our views on political candidates as we speak. History repeats itself my friend and if you picked up a history book you might realize that. You are right,currently we don't have the need our founding fathers had for personal arms but that may not be true in 50 years and your kids and grandchildren will be damn happy those "dumb-ass" founding fathers new more than you did.

—Todd McCormick

Funny piece! I'd almost say it was a conservative that wrote it to poke fun at a liberal.

I'll have to add this site to my list.

I'd write more but I gotta go clean my H&K .45.

—Bruce Zimmerman

Loved the piece but I have a problem. I'm a Jewish female intellectual who teaches in a men's prison and love guns. I not only have an AR-15 (almost my favorite rifle) but also a modest collection of handguns. I am an NRA certified firearms instructor and have trained at Gunsight in AZ. Oh well...

—Carole

Click here for our archive of past letters.