The question proposed on Hellertown-Lower Saucon Patch was, " ?" The question proved very popular. At the time of this writing (Thursday, June 28, 2012) there were 77 comments on Patch on the question, and the accompanying poll had received 1,092 votes, with 58 percent favorable to guns on the trail, 4 percent favorable provided the guns were out of sight (this makes a difference?), 13 percent unfavorable to guns on the trail but OK with carrying guns elsewhere, and 22 percent against guns on the trail, period. It takes a brave or stupid person to oppose such a large majority of gun carriers, especially since . Fortunately, I am 84 years old and risking my life is not really a problem, although I do worry about . . An electric fence prevents her from reaching the trail itself. Who knows when one of these brave patriots will take a shot at her out of annoyance?
The numbers are not surprising. As of 2007, the United States had the highest per capita ownership of small arms in the world (88.8 percent). Its nearest rival was Serbia with a per capita gun ownership rate of 58.2 percent. (The lowest, by the way, was Tunisia at .01 percent.) After all, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the Second Amendment contained an individual guarantee of the right to bear arms. The amendment reads: "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.” Until this recent 5-4 decision, the amendment had always been interpreted as not applying to individual citizens.
Oh well. I guess we will all have to live (or die?) with it. The gun lobbies and a noticeable number of my fellow townsmen argue that guns do not kill people, people do. Absolutely true. The problem is that people sometimes act irrationally. If somebody goes crazy, he usually reaches for his handgun if he has one. He does not, as some Patch readers suggest, reach for his screw driver. The chances of someone carrying a screw driver on the trail are infinitely small.
The irony is, as the policeman referred to in one of the Patch responses said, Hellertown is not really interested in prohibiting handguns on the trail, but rather is very much interested in preventing hunting from that purportedly . Now that I know, I am already terrified by large numbers of citizenry marching close to my house, but the thought of hunters shooting at or around my home is just too much.
Warning, oh gun carriers. I am currently negotiating with an unregistered arms dealer to buy a surplus tank and appropriate ammunition. If things work out, I will park the tank on the trail near my house. The devil takes the regulations preventing the use of the trail by motor vehicles. After all, the Second Amendment allows guns on the trail, nevermind whether they are mounted in vehicles or not, perhaps because they can be part of a “well regulated militia.” Right?
Your mock sympathy is both pathetic and stupid. I made no error in describing the law prior to the Supreme Court case I mentioned. I read some of the earlier case. I very much doubt that you did so. I have every reason to fear my gun toting fellow citizens who are "practicing [their] constitutional right in a law abiding manner." Ever hear of Trayvon Martin and his gun carrying assassin George Zimmerman? It is as if the idiots are running the asylum. Nazis are entitled to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, but no reasonable law abiding citizens who make a pro-Nazi speech merely to practice his rights under the Constitution.
I should have said, "I read some of the earlier cases...." I should also have said, "no reasonable law abiding citizen would..."
You mentioned the Trayvon Martin case: so you're comparing every responsible armed citizen with him? Should I equate you with Michael Moore because he, too, has an illegitimate fear of inanimate objects such as guns? And assassin? Really now, Joel? Despite the muddled nature of the case, and the conflicting accounts given, nothingt has painted him as an assassin. You're using an adjective that does not belong, and is more than slightly insulting to law abiding gun owners, since we're being lumped into the same group as George Zimmerman.
And, by the way, thank you for your service.
What do you say?
Concern number two, merely because the constitution, given the change in the law brought on by a court with a very right wing agenda, rational people do not carry guns just to demonstrate that they have the right to do so. I very much doubt that you, a former marine, need to carry a gun for protection. My wife does not carry a gun on the trail nor does my dog! Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, there have been zero instances of violence on the trail. Why on earth do you need to carry a gun as distinguished from having the right to do so?
1. Licensing- What do you mean by licensing guns? Guns cannot be purchased by anyone who is a felon, or has been mentally adjudicated unfit to possess the firearm. Registering the firearm would serve no purpose because the person is the issue, not the weapon. Google: NICS. It's the National Instant Checks System, and it's used by every gun-dealer in the US to run a check for the prospective buyer. The buyer must pass the NICS background check before purchasing the weapon. 2. The Law- The Supreme Court's highest agenda is to accurately interpret the law. The President, though appointments, can try to sway the overall political agenda of the court, but they are first and foremost judges, not political puppets. I may not agree with all of their decisions, but they have forgotten more about the law than folks like you or I will ever know. The Constitution has been in place since the founding of our country, I don't understand why it is even being questioned, honestly. It is the supreme law of the land. Period.
I don't know what you think Marines are, but we're human, just like the rest of you. I carry a gun because I'm in no shape to run, or fight hand-to-hand, and because hand-to-hand fighting is to be avoided at all costs. I most certainly DO carry my gun for protection. I don't have telekinetic powers, I don't have a personal security detail, and just being a Marine doesn't make me impervious to bullets or knives, so yes, I do in fact carry my weapon for personal defense, and the defense of my wife and kids, as well as any friends around me who are unarmed. The trail hasn't had any instances of violence...yet. It's fairly new, and thankfully Hellertown has a relatively low crime rate. The problem is though, there is always that possibility. There was a meth house raided on 412 just a few months ago, there is graffiti in places in town that could be gang-related. Bethlehem, which has all kinds of wack-o's, isn't very far away...including the Latin Kings, who are still a presence there. I carry my gun because I've seen the bad in this world, and I am determined not to let it happen to me or my family.
Let's agree to disagree and part as friends. I have said everything I care to say on the subject, and so, apparently have you. Disagree with my next column, if you like. No doubt I will answer then. Best, Joel Katz
Thank you. Where is Wyatt and Bat when we need them:
Point us to ANY writing by a founder that states the Bill of Rights is a mix of rights for individuals and the government.... since you won't be able to, tell us how the 2nd amendment was meant for the states, but all other amendments were meant for individuals. Moron.
They had the same 2nd amendment rights. They just know Earp would kill them if they resisted. WHAT'S YOUR POINT, YOU MORON. When a black man was lynched in the south in the 50's, did he have NO RIGHTS, becuase his lynchers were able to pull off the event? YOU IDIOT. You're a liberal no doubt.
Bet that made you soil your diaper.
Carry just because they can? Huh? They carry because they want the ability to defend themselves, unlike a spineless person like you who will rely on begging for you life if you encounter an armed criminal, or I guess, you think the police will protect you. Just because you are afraid to carry a gun doesn't mean everybody else should be prevented from doing so.
You do know that crime rates DROP for all violent crime in states once they pass concealed carry laws, don't you? Oppsss... there goes another diaper.
The more guns we have in the U.S., THE FEWER GUN MURDERS WE HAVE. Can you read you nut wad? So explain that negative correlation to all of us. Tell us how it is that more guns equals less murder. I am still waiting to a link that shows the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment does not give an individual the right to own a gun. I don't give a hoot what some liberal whack job district justices rule. AND of majestic lawyer... tell us.... Is the Bill of Rights a list of rights that INDIVIDUALS have in the United States, or the rights the states have. And MORON that thinks the 2nd amendment means that a state can have a National Guard must also think that the 1st amendment must protect the right of the STATE to say or print what it wants... BUUUPPPPTTTTTTTTTT...... there goes another diaper.....