Amend The Second Amendment

To the Editor:

President Obama had it right when he responded to the defeat of the proposed law to require a background check on anybody anywhere to purchase weapons as “Washington’s shameful day.”

We, the people of Newtown who have seen and experienced ourselves the results of indiscriminate ownership and use of weapons capable of causing so many deaths of the most loved members of our town must not let this matter rest. We owe it to those we lost. What can we do?

It is clear to me that some members of congress will never budge on the matter of gun control. Their reasons vary from political to personal belief that in a truly free society the access to weapons should not be limited by the government and base their belief on the Second Amendment of our Constitution. They are not only wrong, they are totally wrong. This misconception of the words of the amendment are entirely due to the political, social, and military situation existing when the amendment was passed.

We are living in the 21st century, not the 18th or 19th and the difference could not be greater. We no longer have need of a militia. Its place has been taken by the National Guard. We no longer worry about Britain or Canada attacking us. They are democracies unless someone forgot. We no longer worry about raiding Indians sacking our homes and scalping people. Yes, there are lawless elements aplenty to worry about. That is why we have a police.

The time has come to bring the Second Amendment into our modern world. How can we do it? If you knock politely on the front door and it does not open try the back door. You may succeed! I am calling on our political leadership of all parties to join in an effort to bring about the needed changes to the Second Amendment by coming together to this purpose and discussing means to do so. I am certain there are more than enough good men and women who are willing to support such an effort. What has first to be done is to arrive at a consensus of the best means of accomplishing this goal.

The Constitution allows two approaches for amendments. Which shall we choose?

To choose to do nothing is to invite more mayhem and tragedies. I believe we can do better. We may have lost a battle, but final victory is what always counts. No noble cause is ever easy, but we must be the winners.

Oscar Berendsohn

34 Apple Blossom Lane, Newtown            April 18, 2013


90% of the Functional National Guard was deployed

to Afghanistan and Iraq when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.

The National Guards mission has been as an extention of the USA army.

Our forefathers firmly believed that the USA could never support a standing Army of more than 1% of the population. That was our INSURANCE POLICY against tyranny. Today, our armed forces are extended yet again with the Department of Homeland Security, which brings armored cars, attack helicopters and automatic REAL ASSAULT rifles into the hands of law enforcement.

In case you were wondering. The Indians you mentioned as a threat (a racist way of thinking by the way). in 1890, our governments federal cavalry rode into Wounded Knee Creek in South Dakota and asked for every Indian on the reservation to turn over all firearms, for their own safety. Days later, 297 Sioux Indians were massacred there. This is proof that the means of tyranny existed long after the pen left the paper on the bill of rights.

Please re-read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is about the PEOPLE (ie.. WE THE PEOPLE). It is a standing document that we have lived by and every member of the Executive branch (in particular) is sworn to uphold. Only a revisionist would claim those words, written by the people that provided the ground work for this great country, would belittle them as irrelevant.

There are many ways the government already bends due process in the name of national security, and pretty much everyone accepts it. The fact is we live in a society rife with crime. Civil defense is virtually non-existent. Our police forces are becoming militarized and violent as well as corrupt to a level not seen since the 1920’s. I’d say protecting yourself and your family is as paramount today as in any point in history.
Let’s concentrate on disarming criminals first.

Change the constitution

Maybe there are other amendments or Articles that no longer bear the scrutiny of modern times.

First Amendment:
When a person like that "minister" in Florida can burn the Koran under the aegis of the 1st amendment and this leads to the deaths and injuries to our service people serving in Afghanistan maybe Freedom of Speech is no longer relevant.

6th Amendment:
Miranda is getting in the way of getting to the bottom of the Boston bombers plot and possible accomplices. Perhaps Miranda has outlived its usefulness

4th Amendment:
When a heavily armed SWAT team shows up at your door and asks permission to search for a runaway terrorist, who can really give "consent" Who would dare refuse?

Yes many of our Bill of rights do not stand up to scrutiny in this modern age and should be removed before they cause us irreparable harm.

A response to Mr. Berendsohn

Mr. Berendsohn:

You have overlooked a major reason President Obama was unable to obtain support from the 535 people he attempted to influence in Congress. He is untrustworthy, his pledges have no value, and empowering the federal government with additional control of individual gun ownership will eventually and inevitably lead to complete gun confiscation. Might take 5 years, might take 50 years….progressives are patient souls. But they recognize the Newtown shooting as a fully ripened political opportunity.

Obama has claimed that this is nonsense and people who believe this are delusional…that this is a smoke screen created by the NRA and gun manufacturers. However, his words have become irrelevant. It is his history of implying or outright stating a course of action and embarking on a reverse course that reveals his intentions, his worldview, his future policies…..his words don’t mean what they appear to mean, not what you and I take them to mean. And he does not hold human life as sacred….rather it is a tool to be used to further his agenda. To employ your superlative syntax, I am not only right about this, I am totally right.

During his first term, mass murders in Tucson, AZ and Aurora, CO did nothing to motivate him to action. Likewise, the escalation of violence in his hometown of Chicago went completely unnoticed. But once ensconced in a lame duck second term with minimal political risk, he felt called upon to take action, and to lecture Congress and the US to take action, “if even one life could be saved”. The lives lost in Tucson, Aurora and elsewhere evidently weren’t adequate. Hard to discern an honest love of human life in this situation, wouldn’t you say?

While President, he endorsed the program his AG initiated called “Fast and Furious”….releasing untracked US manufactured weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in the belief they would find their way back across the border and be used in US crimes. This would then be used to claim American gun manufacturers were causing gun violence in both the US and Mexico. Asks the parents of border guard Brian Terry how this all worked out. Terry was executed by some Mexican drug dealing dirt-bag with one of AG Holder’s F&F weapons. Obama never shed a tear, did all he could to distance himself from the whole affair. Another pro-life move?

While a State Senator in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama voted more than once against legislation that would have ensured sufficient, appropriate and immediate care for infants who had survived abortion procedures. When interviewed about this, he claimed the bills in question could potentially place at risk a woman’s right to choose. He was unwilling to risk that right and decided instead to vote no. So the infants born were not protected as US citizens though having been legally born in the United States, they were instead legally ensnared in Constitutional limbo, subject to the life and death decision of the patient and doctor. Obama didn’t seem particularly concerned about human life in this instance did he? At a minimum, couldn’t he have concluded such a decision was “above his pay grade” as he explained it as a presidential candidate, and voted “Absent”? Very pro-life.

Perhaps his action that best illustrates his love of human life is his friendship and allegiance with convicted terrorist Bill Ayers. Ayers, a co-founder of the Weather Underground (which Ayers described in an interview as a communist revolutionary group), conducted a bombing campaign in the ‘60s and ‘70s that cost the US taxpayer a few dollars and cost a few people their lives. They used nail-bombs, like the human scum Sarnaev brothers used in Boston last week. Do you have any friends that describe themselves as Communist revolutionaries?....or that have spent any amount of time building nail bombs?

The reason so very many people do not want the federal government tracking all gun ownership is because of the past performance and behavior of elected officials. They lie when they speak. They will claim they do not want to confiscate guns, but would do so in a heartbeat if given the chance. Holder, Obama, Feinstein and other legislative and executive branch officials have said so in no uncertain terms, though you’ll have trouble finding such claims on the internet. Just like Obama promised via Executive action that abortion would not be required by Obamacare.…but never specifically excluded it from the bill. So bet the farm on it….your tax dollars will be used to pay for welfare recipients to use abortion as birth control through Obamacare.

Perhaps Obama’s got you fooled….perhaps you somehow believe he is the high integrity lover of life he claims to be. Perhaps you believe he’s a lover of the US Constitution as well and recognizes it as the sacred foundation of the greatest country ever created, and that he will rid the US of gun violence, or at least get us started down the right path. If you do….you are not only wrong, you are totally wrong.

You must register or login to post a comment.