Letters to editor

We need dialogue on Second Amendment

By From page A7 | January 25, 2013

I have to thank Mr. Edward Doolin of Vacaville for his very funny letter to the editor, “Second Amendment means what it says,” on Jan. 17.

I have never heard the Second Amendment defined in so creative a manner. From his perspective, “well-regulated” means provisioned or armed. Does this mean folks can either be provisioned or armed, but not both? If we choose provisioned, is the government responsible for feeding us, i.e., keeping us provisioned? He goes on to state that arms are not limited to rifles and shotguns, so I guess it’s OK to carry hidden pitchforks without worrying about retribution.

In today’s society, a well-regulated militia is the U.S. armed forces and not individual gun nuts or paranoid survivalist groups.

To clarify a point, I’m not proposing banning pistols and rifles, merely that they need to be regulated. The Supreme Court agrees with me on this point. If folks are concerned about a “tyrannical government” agency counting your guns, then create a citizens group to manage this function.

We need to have some serious dialogue about this.

Grant Kreinberg


Letter to the Editor


Discussion | 5 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • Former FF residentJanuary 25, 2013 - 2:04 am

    What more dialogue could you want given the amount of regulation, which you claim to feel is needed, could we possibly have? To clarify a point, I’m not proposing banning pistols and rifles, merely that they need to be regulated

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • laffsatliersJanuary 25, 2013 - 7:16 am

    Mr. Kreinberg displays a profound lack of knowledge in this letter. The "militia" IS NOT the "U.S. armed forces." Mr. K. then departs from civil discourse by naming opponents of the gun grabbers (see, nasty speech can work both ways) "gun nuts or paranoid survivalist groups." Mr. K, I recommend you learn your history before spouting off with your "funny little letter." The "militia" is and always has been every able bodied male citizen and not the National Guard or any other government controlled group.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sick of itJanuary 25, 2013 - 12:18 pm

    The founding fathers knew that England tried to disarm the colonists which brought the revolt. The militia back then was the everyday farmers/citizens that had arms. The founders feared that the government could get corrupt as history has shown and harm the people with their power. The right to bear arms was part of a check and balance for the people. Putting in the word Militia kept the government from ever banning one. It allowed the right of the citizens to form a Militia. It also allowed arms! Remember that even today, governments harm their people with their power throughout the world.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • StRJanuary 25, 2013 - 12:23 pm

    @ Sick of It.....Very good. I agree.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • P.S.January 25, 2013 - 12:26 pm

    The revolt was also caused by the removal of colonial script, the money supply by the English Government. This was also a major cause of the revolt. Read Web of Debt by Ellen Brown and Vile Acts of Evil by Mike Kirchubel to find out about this. And everyone be sure to BARF on the Federal Reserve.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.