"The Second Amendment is irrelevant" ~ Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver

Indeed there are gun crimes committed every day in cities like Trenton, Camden Newark, etc. What are the politicians Like Bonnie Watson Coleman, Sheila Oliver and Steve Sweeney DOING about the gang violence and drug dealing responsible for these crimes - NOTHING! What are they doing about the underlying causes of these crimes such as poverty, loss of jobs and poor quality education in our inner cities - NOTHING! What they *ARE* doing is trying to deflect attention away from their own incompetence and onto the law abiding gun owner who not ONLY is not the problem, but who has a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED right to keep and bear arms.

I understand that Sheila Oliver believes that the Constitution of the United States of America is irrelevant. She has said so. She believes that it is outdated. And yet our founders knew quite well that politicians like her would come along and try to restrict the rights of future generations of Americans. That is precisely WHY they created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To PROTECT our fundamental, preexisting, INALIENABLE rights from people exactly like her.

Is freedom of the press outdated? How about freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression? We have recently seen how the politicians routinely violate our right to privacy. No doubt modern day politicians interested more in CONTROL than FREEDOM would like to interfere with these basic rights. We must think long and hard about whether or not we really want to allow some random politician to strip us of *ANY*of the rights our founders recognized as ESSENTIAL to the ability of WE THE PEOPLE to protect ourselves from people like Bonnie Watson Coleman, Sheila Oliver and Steve Sweeney.

Take this as a warning, my fellow residents of New Jersey. These politicians are not interested in preserving your freedom. They have demonstrated over and over again that their ultimate goal is to control every aspect of our behavior until we are so dependent on the state and federal government that we have no choice but to obey their commands. I don't know about you, but I do not want to wait around to see what happens to us after that goal is obtained.

Elections are coming up in November for all of these politicians who would rather see us in pens, than allow us to exercise the rights that our founders held dear. "Outdated", no, I don't think so. I think the minds of these politicians are so distorted by power, greed and corruption, and that they are so mired down in their own incompetence, that they don't DARE to let WE THE PEOPLE see their true nature. Control is what they are after, and control is what they will get unless *WE* replace as many of them as we possibly can. This November might be the last time we stand a chance at defeating them before they are able to manipulate the system so much in their favor that it will take a backhoe to pull them out of Trenton.

NOW IS THE TIME to open your eyes and see what the future holds for a people willing to allow their rights to be taken one by one. Today it is your inalienable right to keep and bear arms, what will it be tomorrow?

I'd-Rather-Be-at-63 July 25, 2013 at 08:34 AM
Mr. Fiamingo, the only rights you have are the ones granted to you by the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. However much the Founding Fathers waxed philosophic, there are no rights that are inalienable, inherent or God-given. Believing so is just silly. You have the rights granted to you by the government under which you live. The right to keep and bear arms was intended to serve a political end that legitimized the revolt against the lawful government of the time, England. The Constitution gives you the right to bear arms to rise up against a government that acts in its own interest and not in the interest of the governed. The Founding Fathers never intended this right to be exercised for citizens to settle disputes among themselves or for the defense of the home. An army and police force would see to that. The only reason to keep and bear arms was for the purposes of a militia that would revolt against the government, whatever the politics of the Supreme Court rulings since then. And no government anywhere ever has indeed willingly allowed such militia to exist. If you are arguing for the right for you and your neighbors to keep Leopard II tanks and Bell-AH1 Cobra attack helicopters parked in your driveways in order to overthrow the government, then perhaps you have a sound conservative American argument. If you are arguing for the right to keep a .45 on your night table, then you are simply a liberal loony with no sense of American history or what it means to be a good American. Owning a gun as a private citizen for protection is stupid. It is a sign of weakness and a threat to law-abiding citizens. Your posting is not much more than a rant by a child that wants to keep his toys. Its sentiment is un-American. It is the kind of speech that contributes to daily innocent deaths on American streets. Perhaps you should rethink what it means to be an American and promote good government and lawful citizenry. There are more worthy battles to fight in support of a better nation than the constant crying about restrictions on one's toys.
Frank Jack Fiamingo July 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM
I feel sorry for you if you sincerely believe that the GOVERNMENT grants you your rights. That means that at any moment, the government can decide that you should be a slave, a beast of burden rather than a free human. *YOU* can believe that if you wish. All I can do is feel bad for you. You are correct that the intention of the Second Amendment was then and is now to keep the balance of power in the hands of the PEOPLE where it belongs in a government *OF* the people, *BY* the people and *FOR* the people. The *FACT* that the people are supposed to be armed as a deterrent to governmental tyranny has never been in question. I agree that it wouldn't matter even if SCOTUS decided that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT a right of the people. SCOTUS does not have the power to change the meaning of the Constitution. It says what it says "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. However, that was merely an admonition *TO* the government not to interfere with preexisting rights (you know, the ones our founders often spoke of). I argue that BOTH rights exist. The right to keep and bear arms to defend against governmental tyranny as well as a right to defend against *ANY* initiation of the use of force REGARDLESS of the source. It is your ignorance of History that is disturbing. And if it is not stupid and irresponsible to leave your family defenseless, well then you must be a coward. Actually, it is your insistence on hiding your head in the sand and trying to prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting their families that will lead to unfortunate and preventable deaths. There are thousands of instances every day across this nation where individuals where able to defend themselves against the initiation of force by others. If you think that a gun is a "toy", then perhaps *YOU* are the problem. I think of my guns as potentially deadly tools that must be handled carefully and secured properly. I think it is sad how truly ignorant you are and how dangerous your attitude about guns being "toys" really is. In your particular case, I would strongly advise you *NOT* to be armed. I am certain YOUR neighborhood would not be any safer with you being armed. One must first be qualified. I am pretty sure that you would not be able to meet the requirements. You must be willing to allow the authorities to search your mental health records. As a gun owner, I have alread passed all the background checks, so we KNOW that I am qualified. What do we know about you?
Frank Jack Fiamingo July 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM
You may believe that you have no rights or that the government grants you your rights, but that is pretty ignorant. No where in the Second Amendment nor elsewhere in the Bill of Rights does it imply that the government grants anything. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Right exist as a WARNING *TO* the government NOT to infringe upon the rights of the people. I strongly suggest that you actually try READING the Constitution if you are going to write about it. You are embarrassing yourself. A well regulated militia (properly supplied and prepared common people), being necessary to the security of a free state (in order to remain free), the right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed (must not be disarmed by the government). It could not be clearer to anyone with as little as a third grade education. The fact that you think of guns as being toys demonstrates to me that you are not qualified to own firearms and most likely would not be qualified. I am a gun owner and as such I have had my background checked and my mental health records searched. I have been found to be qualified. What do we know about you?
I'd-Rather-Be-at-63 July 25, 2013 at 04:23 PM
When you have a missiles installed in your chimney and a well-armed tanked parked in your driveway for a week, I will reconsider who grants you your "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms. Certainly that right has been infringed upon even before it was ratified by the state governments. Human beings are not born with guns as appendices and bullets are not imprinted in our DNA. The vast majority of the history of humankind has been without guns, and the vast majority of peaceful people today live without guns. If the government can infringe on your "God-given right" to keep and bear arms to the extent that you cannot even own a missile launcher, then you should not pretend that there is anything left of the 2nd Amendment worth saving. The very fact that you wrote this piece shows that the right can be taken away by the government (you address your anger to a senator), and that the government can infringe that right to whatever extent it deems necessary. I understand you feel good having your papers all in order qualifies you to own a gun. It does legally (and only legally). Many toys are "potentially deadly tools." Some toys should be restricted. I agree that the neighborhoods in which we live are safer when people, like me (and like you), do not own guns. This is not meant as an offense to your person, rather as sound advice for keeping yourself, your family and those near and dear to you safe - as well as the rest of the people in our neighborhoods.
Frank Jack Fiamingo July 25, 2013 at 10:48 PM
So, then you agree with me that we should be allowed to own missiles. That is a step in the right direction. Still, since you think guns are "toys", I am afraid that I will not be able to allow YOU to have any guns. Maybe later after we have had more time to talk.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something