To the editor:
The government is wasting no time in attempting to redesign the intent of the Second Amendment. Recent briefing by various members of the administration at the highest levels are stressing that the new regulations are not aimed at depriving citizens of their right to own firearms in their homes for protection. This sleight of hand easily goes unnoticed by many in the general population who buy into the thought that home protection was the fundamental reason for the Second Amendment. This was not the case. The Framers of our Constitution were brilliant political scientists. They were in a death struggle with political tyranny and controlling it was their single most purpose. Once they had a firm grasp of this danger they intended to ensure that this country's citizens would always have the means to protect themselves from the excesses of government. The entire Bill of Rights is dedicated to that end.
The straw man arguments of home defense, personal defense, hunting, targeting shooting are all distractions from the original intent.
On the heels of the story that Homeland Security was creating its own defense force 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration's "litmus test" for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.
This would easily be overlooked and not garner much importance if it wasn't coupled with the fact that the Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest.
The "dots" are ominous and it remains to be seen how they will connect.
Is Homeland Security going hunting? If so, who or what are the intended targets?
The Second Amendment speaks eloquently on the heart of the matter: 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. This Amendment does not mention arms in the home but rather the bearing of arms. Nothing about thieves and criminals but instead a free state!
Any restriction on this right to bear arms violates the "shall not be infringed" dictate in the Amendment.
Recent weeks have witnessed a growing number of firearms and ammunition companies refusing to sell to the government in those areas where the government is restricting the Second Amendment rights of their citizens. At last count 34 companies have joined in this effort. Clearly the government is doing something that is fundamentally against the concept of what it means to be an American.
We are facing strong economic hurdles and this administration is focusing on gun ownership? Why do they consider that a more pressing issue than the wellbeing of our economic health?
Joseph L. Kibitlewski, PhD.