TERRE HAUTE —
Focusing on the true meaning of our laws
Notwithstanding the United States Supreme Court’s holding in McDonald vs. Chicago, it was never the intent of the authors of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) to extend to the individual the right to keep and bear arms under the wording of the Second Amendment.
Various amendments founded in these 10 amendments address the civil rights of the people in an aggregate sense, by the word people; versus the word person(s) intended for the use in an individual context. By the First Amendment, the people are protected against government interference in the collective sense: religion, speech, press, assembly, and redress of grievances. Of the Second Amendment, the people hold the right to protect themselves by a standing militia to establish the security of a free state via a well-regulated force which keeps and bears armaments to protect the state against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Contrariwise, Amendments Nine and Ten address the collective rights of the people by use of the word people. The authors postulated individual rights via Amendments Three, Four, Five, and Six by and through the use of person(s).
Given these amendments manifest and differentiate between collective and individual rights, had the authors intended the Second Amendment to include the individuals’ rights to possess guns, this amendment’s wording would have been the right of the person (not the people) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In this context, what is the product of this ignorance of the meaning and import of the Second Amendment? The fact is we now have a generation of Americans, including a Supreme Court, who believe in and are guided by the consequence of an individual gun ownership falsehood which was never intended by the authors of the Second Amendment.
Since millions of these lethal weapons are held and circulate in American society involving weapons of war such as the AR-15, AK-47, and Glock 40, what happened in Aurora, Colo., last week is destined to happen again.
— Earl Beal
What’s up with those without IDs
Back on July 13 I read an aggravating Trib-Star editorial on the subject of “Flawed premise deprives voters.” Feeling at once this was another attempt to gather many more un-documented, perhaps illegal votes for our elitist Democrats and Obama, I had to respond.
The editorial states that our voter ID laws are too stringent. They are not. They also state that these laws suppress voter participation. If they do, it’s because those voters are illegal, ignorant, feel above the law or are just lazy.
If you have read the news, watched the news and followed this scenario, you are aware that the Obama regime has been working overtime to change our valid and necessary voter laws. Why would that be?
Would you please take a moment and remember all the men and women who have given their lives defending our many freedoms — one of those is the right to vote. Stop and consider that they did not serve or die to dumb down the American voting system. What could be more important than a legitimate, documented vote? This is the first step against voter fraud.
Noteworthy: I want to stop here and state that the right to vote is the foundation of any democracy, yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.
While I was reflecting on this subject, I remembered back to a letter written in early 2011 by Mike McLean. In his letter he states a few things that require a valid ID (as I remember them): Cashing a check, buying liquor, buying cigarettes, obtaining welfare, Social Security, selling copper, getting a passport (try that one), and getting a driver’s license.
I’m 74 years old, voted all my adult life, attempt to stay informed and lately the hot topic of conversation is politics, unfortunately. A main topic is voter ID and why anyone would want to lessen the requirement to valid identity. I do not know anyone of voting age without accepted ID. Do you?
(Yes I do know a few older folks who have never had a driver’s license. However, they can obtain a valid ID at any BMV.)
What I’ve not been able to glean from the Trib-Star editorial, are any examples of how our present Indiana ID law to show a government-approved ID card is causing anyone a hardship.
— William P. Thiel