An Open Letter to NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Posted: Monday, January 23, 2012
by Patricia Johnson
Articles and Answers.com
![Description: C:\Users\Michael\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\VWDF3TZB\MC900149511[1].wmf](http://WryteStuff.com/UserImages/115633/Constitution.jpg)
Your article, ALL IN, as printed in the February issue of American Rifleman, the Official Journal of the National Rifle Association, begins by stating the election of 2012 is basically the most important election in the history of the United States, I couldn’t agree with you more.
I’m not quite sure I follow your line of thinking on this subject.
On December 15, 1791 the State of Virginia became the 10th state to approve the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution providing the majority of states necessary to ratify. The first 10 amendments to our Constitution subsequently became known as the Bill of Rights and the second amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
AMENDMENT II
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.
Through the years there has been considerable controversy over the second amendment due to the word ‘militia’ being used within the amendment. This controversy was eliminated in 2008 through the Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller, docket number 07-290. The Supreme Court ruled the second amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected to service in a militia, as long as the firearm is used for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
It took decades to obtain a ruling on the word ‘militia’ within the context of the Bill of Rights, yet page one of your article is suggesting the ‘Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms’ is very likely the first right that will fall with Obama’s re-election. Your article is giving the false impression that eliminating our second amendment right to bear arms is a simple matter of having electors vote Obama in office for a second term, during the November 2012 election.
The Constitution of the United States is the Law of the Land and changing the Constitution is not simply a matter of having the Supreme Court rule on the definition of a particular word, or having the sitting President write an Executive Order, etc., etc..
Changing the Constitution is a very complex process which is authorized by Article V of the U.S. Constitution. An amendment may be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses, or by a constitution convention [none of the current 27 amendments have ever been proposed by constitutional convention]. Once the amendment is approved by Congress, it then goes to the OFR for processing and publication. The Archivist then submits the proposed amendment to the States for ratification. Once a proposed amendment is ratified by a three-fourths majority [38 of 50 states], it becomes part of the Constitution.
The 112th Congress can barely agree on what day of the week it is, yet you are suggesting they’re going to put through a constitutional amendment to kill the second amendment?
Your article suggests “Obama and company are engaged in a conspiracy of public deception”, yet you appear to be the one that is deceiving the public.
Your article states “within a week of his election to the White House in 2008, Obama’s “transition team” posted several elements of his gun-ban agenda on the Internet – at change.gov – but then abruptly deleted the web page.
Change.gov is the Obama-Biden transition website that carried postings for the interim period from the election in 2008 until the inauguration in 2009. The first posting to this site was made on Wednesday, November 5, 2008, at 4:09 pm EST [the day after the election] and the final posting was made Monday, January 19, 2009 at 3:30 pm EST [the day before the swearing in ceremony]. The website change.gov was closed because Obama was sworn in as President of the United States and future postings would be posted to the White House website – whitehouse.gov
All the original postings to change.gov are still available.
I reviewed entries going forward and fail to find evidence of the gun-ban agenda as indicated in your article. Of course it’s possible the information is there and I’ve just missed it because I’m not researching the proper terms, such as author name, subject, and key words.
Going back to each and every accusation made in your article would be too time consuming, especially since you do not provide supporting documentation for any of your claims. A simple referral to a link containing your referenced material would make your article far more educational to the average reader.
I did have to laugh when I read the paragraph stating “Cass Sunstein is an animal “rights” zealot who believes hunting should be outlawed and animals should have the “right” to file lawsuits.” A word of advice – just because you read it on the internet, or in the newspaper, or just because Glen Beck said it, doesn’t make it gospel.
Intelligent individuals often have philosophical discussions about any number of issues. Such is the case with the book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions which was edited by Cass Sunstein and his then-partner Martha Nussbaum. Sunstein’s view is not that animals should have the ‘right’ to file lawsuits, but that individuals should have the right to file lawsuits on behalf of animals in order to ensure compliance with existing law.
Under current law [when the book was published] if a neighbor sees someone beating an animal, they are not able to sue for animal cruelty because they do not have the legal standing to do so. Providing individuals with the ability to sue on behalf of animals would provide an animal with additional legal protection against abuse and cruelty, by ensuring that animal abusers would more likely be punished, for their abuse, in accordance with existing laws.
I’ve read considerable on President Obama’s agenda on the ‘right to bear arms’ and he absolutely believes in the rights of individuals to bear arms for protection. His thoughts on the subject may be read on the White House website http://www.whitehouse.gov
Following is an excerpt from an op-ed written by the President a couple months after the shooting of Representative Gabriel Gifford, on the subject of gun ownership. If there was any period in time when Obama would be against gun ownership, I assume it would be after a well-liked member of the Democratic Party was seriously injured by a shooter, and would subsequently leave the U.S. House so she could continue her therapy full time, but that’s not the case. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/13/op-ed-president-obama-arizona-daily-star-we-must-seek-agreement-gun-refo
“Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.”
In conclusion, I believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Our forefathers gave us this right and it’s not a right that can, or should be, withdrawn from the people of the United States.
With all due respect, your interpretation of President Obama’s agenda on the second amendment and the President’s views on the subject are not even in the same ballpark.
Which one of you is actually trying to deceive the public?
© Patricia L Johnson
This Article has been viewed 402 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.