published Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013

'2nd Amendment still valid today' and more letters to the editors

2nd Amendment still valid today

"Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This was written after the colonies had defeated the strongest nation on Earth and won our freedom from repressive government. It was not written by the NRA or wacko gun nuts or baby-killers, it was written by the forefathers of this nation in order to protect the people of the United States of America (then and forever).

It has nothing to do with authorizing the possession of muskets. It has to do with never again allowing an oppressive government to become the oppressor of us all. It is as valid today as it was on the day it was written. It is our insurance policy to prevent us from ever being ruled by another king or dictator. You need not be a Ph.D. to understand it.

Five times, I have taken the oath to "Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." Presidents and presidential fiats are not included in this oath.

I shall continue to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America until my death.

WILLIAM W. FRAKER, Col. U.S. Army (Ret.)

Update flu vaccine using technology

The current flu vaccine is reported as only 60 percent effective. The vaccine is raised against antigens (proteins) on the flu virus envelope that to a large extent are constantly changing, forcing vaccine developers to guess each year prior to vaccine production which antigenic strains will be present on next year's flu virus.

A flu vaccine raised against viral core antigens that apparently do not change over time could be developed, potentially 100 percent effective for as long as a decade.

As I write this, my wife and I are suffering a miserable viral illness, possibly flu, which has lasted over 10 days. Influenza deaths have already been reported across the country. Considering the costs, both direct with regard to diagnosis and treatment as well as indirect (e.g. lost work, diminished productivity) to society and the economy, it is incomprehensible that we continue to utilize yesterday's technology.

Vaccines do not have a great rate of return on investment. If this is the case, then this government, which seems to be intrusive in every other sector, may for once have a legitimate reason to be so, funding the research, so as to eliminate this yearly health debacle.


Find a real lefty instead of Brooks

As a liberal (oh my goodness, who admits to that these days?), I would like to see you dispense with dispensing David Brooks' faux "centrist" pabulum. He purports to be a noble seeker of common ground and a proponent of evenhandedness in our political discourse; in truth he is but a sycophant of the right wing who is trying to edit out all the social conservatism and racism at the core of the modern Republican Party.

Blithely he defines us: Republican = low tax; Democrat = entitlements. He goes on to worry about those mean Democrats trying to split the Confederate Party from the country club set, our true Galtian overlords. Never mind that every Republican since Nixon (including St. Ronnie) has won by pandering to racist fears. Even the false equivalence of Democrats with entitlements bears the stench of the shiftless "Welfare Queen" (with her Cadillac) meme. An "earnest, good-government type" indeed.

David Brooks' "centrism" has no place on the left side of this paper, unless you desire to be complicit in the Right's determined shifting of the Overton window. So please, if you really want to have a left-side view, go find a real lefty. The fresh air might do everybody some good.

CATHY CLARK, Decherd, Tenn.

Gun restrictions won't halt crimes

My perspective on gun control has been molded and influenced over the past few years working in law enforcement, and my experiences make it difficult for me to believe the policies of stricter gun control will do anything other than disarm law-abiding citizens and infringe upon their 2nd Amendment rights.

I've arrested criminals in possession of stolen guns, and I've arrested criminals committing crimes with those guns. Criminals scoff at gun control laws, and criminals always target someone they believe is unarmed.

I do not believe tighter gun control laws will stop the crimes we are trying to prevent. To those that disagree, I ask several questions:

Do you really believe a criminal determined to obtain a gun cares that it's against the law to break into a home and steal that gun?

Do you really believe an armed robber cares if it's against the law to take a gun into a bank?

Do you really believe a mentally deranged criminal cares it's against the law to take a gun into a school?

Do you really think there's a difference between the use of one gun with a 30-round magazine and one gun with three 10-round magazines?


Fashion feature needs adjustment

The young man in MyStyle feature Jan. 21 looks quite polished (very "cool") in the photograph. I noted the cost of his glasses ($240), jacket ($270) and shoes ($249) ... and that may not include taxes! Those three items alone equal $759; the entire outfit cost $933. That's more than half what I receive (and live on) from monthly Social Security funds and only $77 short of two months' worth of my rent and twice the yearly total of my supplemental Medicare insurance!

Since my retirement, outfit-of-choice is a favorite set of comfy PJs. An old lady like me certainly is not jealous of his outfit -- its "look" or its costs. But I do wonder how featuring the prices of a teenager's clothing impacts students of his age, perhaps his own classmates, who are unable to afford even necessary items for attending school. Perhaps, for those students, MyStyle could feature the same look as this one, listing reasonable prices from "local stores" as was done in this MyStyle with "designer names."


NRA must return to its original role

The fear that any gun any control legislation whatsoever will allow the government to come into our homes and confiscate our hunting rifles and shotguns is ridiculous, and the gun lobby knows it.

When citing the Second Amendment in support of firearms ownership the gun lobby conveniently omits the opening defining clause, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the safety of a free state ..." Wonder why? These words authorize state militias, not individual gun ownership. In 1791 Congress had a natural distrust of standing armies and preferred civilian state militias for national defense. Gun ownership was then, as it is today, an assumed right under the common law.

We have had gun control laws in this country since the early 19th century, even in Southern states such as Alabama and Tennessee, plus the National Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968. But we still have our guns.

The National Rifle Association was founded after the Civil War by two Union veterans to improve the marksmanship of potential army enlistees. The NRA has approved gun legislation in the past, but since the NRA-GOP nuptials, things have changed. That organization needs to divorce the Republicans and reassume its original role.

GEORGE B. REED JR., Rossville

Law guarantees right to own guns

The proposals to achieve gun safety have caused some to be concerned about their Second Amendment rights to own guns.

These concerns can be easily addressed.

It is a matter of constitutional law. And that law absolutely guarantees the right of citizens to own guns.

Moreover, the Supreme Court's most conservative member, Justice Antonin Scalia, has clearly confirmed our Second Amendment guarantee, as well as the people's right to enact reasonable laws to make gun ownership and use as safe as possible.

Two rights, both guaranteed.

Our 3rd District congressman, Chuck Fleischman, a lawyer and a conservative, knows the law and can reassure his constituents that, without a doubt, the Second Amendment has our back.


Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Easy123 said...

Jeremiah Cook,

You could ask those same questions about any law and get the same answer. So should we get rid of speed limits and laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. too?

Legalizing and taxing drugs would stop a lot of gun crime but you WingNuts would never go for that. Just think of gun control as a compromise. LMFAO!

January 23, 2013 at 1:09 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Mr. Fraker, thanks for writing to express your views. But, where is the "well-regulated" militia? The pro-gun crowd seems to always ignore that part of the 2d amendment and give it no meaning. Surely, that was not the intention of the Founders.

January 23, 2013 at 8:10 a.m.
Plato said...

WILLIAM W. FRAKER, Col. U.S. Army (Ret) said:

'Five times, I have taken the oath to "Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." Presidents and presidential fiats are not included in this oath.

I shall continue to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America until my death.'

So you don't believe the oat applies to your Commander In Chief?

Perhaps what you really meant to type was:

"Democratic Presidents are not included in this oath."

January 23, 2013 at 11:02 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

WILLIAM FRAKER... We have something today that did not exist when the Constitution was written - that which you have been a part of for most of your adult life: a standing military. We also have a National Guard. And a police force in every community, big and small. What served our country 226 years ago was well and good. But the Constitution is not some absolute, inerrant, sacrosanct document that is supposed to be enshrined and encased forever in glass and viewed with the reverence of a holy relic. Our forefathers had the wisdom to know that changes would need to be made, according to how the nation would grow and evolve, and made allowances for those necessary changes to be made to it.

Whatever a "well regulated militia" meant to the original colonies has no meaning whatsoever for us today. We have well regulated militias in place at every level of government: local, state-wide, and national. Bubba with an AR15 is not a "well regulated militia."

If you are so paranoid that you fear a takeover by our own government, well, no back-woods Rambos are going to be sufficient to fight off the full force of the military. And whatever "dictator" was foolish enough to even attempt a coup would have to have the military on his side before even setting out on such a stupid and far-fetched endeavor. But I know that paranoia runs deep among those who like to fancy themselves as their own "well regulated militia."

January 23, 2013 at 1:21 p.m.
dcIII said...

great letter Cathy Clark! So refreshing to hear someone tell it like it is. And loved the centrist pablum! email me sometime I'd like to hear more from you.

January 23, 2013 at 6 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Rickaroo said

"Whatever a "well regulated militia" meant to the original colonies has no meaning whatsoever for us today.

What it means for us today is what the Supreme Court says it means:

"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training"

January 23, 2013 at 10:06 p.m.
moon4kat said...

Sailorman, this is the same Court majority that says corporations are people. Their definitions are bizarre and unacceptable to most real people.

January 23, 2013 at 10:38 p.m.

Now hear this for comment # 8!

Why is it that those who steal guns, who then go and kill movie

goers and children in school...Why is it that none of them have

ever been a conservative NRA member?

January 24, 2013 at 12:33 a.m.

Just look at this registered Democrat, who just happened to be a moslem. Remember the FORT HOOD MURDERER?

January 24, 2013 at 12:49 a.m.

Then, also, you might want to take a look at some other 'famous' murderers who just happened to be REGISTERED DEMOCRATS, and in 'NO WAY' N.R.A. MEMBERS:

Columbine - Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.

Virginia Tech - Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff - Registered Democrat.

Colorado Theater - Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL!

January 24, 2013 at 12:54 a.m.

And, and, and, Oh my Lord! Oh yes. What about these Registered Democrat, NON---N.R.A MEMBERS? NON-MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION:

Connecticut School Shooter - Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Unabomber - Registered Democrat and inspired by Al Gore's Book 'Earth in a Balance'.

Timothy McVey - Oklahoma City Bombing raised Democrat and pro-Union.

 The Common Thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

Instead of registering and banning firearms possibly we should IDENTIFY and BAN PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!

(I came by my information honestly-'Fair Use'. kwo

January 24, 2013 at 12:59 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Lanza's mom and McVeigh had very similar ideas about guns and the government, Ken. Your political party really isn't as much of a factor when you are crazy to begin with. Kind of like you.

But I guess you'd rather stick with your stereotypes then deal with facts.

January 24, 2013 at 6:21 a.m.
Sailorman said...


Yes they do. Regardless, if and until it changes, that's the interpretation.

SOME of heir definitions are bizarre and unacceptable to SOME people.

January 24, 2013 at 7:50 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.