Letters to the editor, January 7
January 4, 2013 1:20PM
SEND US YOUR OPINION: Letters to the editor should be no more than 300 words. The Post-Tribune reserves the right to edit
or reject any letter. All letters must be signed and include your name, address and telephone number for verification. To send us
your letter to the editor, mail to: 1433 E. 83rd Ave., Merrillville, IN 46410; fax to: (219) 648-3249; or e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org . If you have questions, call Diane Aden Hayes, managing editor, at (219) 648-3241.
Updated: February 8, 2013 6:03AM
Look to grammar to parse Constitution’s meanings
I cannot speak to constitutional law, but I can speak to grammar and sentence structure, which probably were more intimately studied and practiced in the 18th century than today.
The document we call the Constitution was constructed on sets of conditional clauses, reasons and explanations. The Preamble, the thesis statement if you will, is the sentence that sets the grounds for everything that follows: We the People of the United States (the who part of the statement), in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (the why part of the statement), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America (the what part of the statement).
That means everything that follows must support the why part of the statement — Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.
Then, skip to the Second Amendment, which so many like to flaunt and debate. First, it must support the original statement: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. Secondly, in reading it, it is another conditional statement: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (the why part of the statement), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (the what part of the statement).
The second part of the statement cannot stand without the first, and the first does not state, in order to ensure personal safety, in order to hunt or in order to shoot 20 defenseless first-graders.
We, as individuals, as a community and as a nation, need to re-examine if our obsession with our supposed personal right to bear arms is in the spirit and language of the Constitution, in the Second Amendment, but maybe, more importantly, in the Preamble: to promote Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.
Time has come for America
to get rid of everyone’s guns
I see the National Rifle Association has doubled down on no new gun-control laws.
Maybe it is time to fight fire with unreasonable fire. Just one new law— everyone turns in all of their damn guns — now. No more bull from either side. Game over. Turn them in or face prison time and fines.
This includes “hunters” and “sportsmen;” this includes everyone.
Dislike of Obama is just pure, supposedly rational hatred
Mr. Rapchak: It is refreshing to read someone as balanced as you. No “irrational hatred” of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party — just pure rational hatred.
You forgot to mention Obama’s birth on Pluto and his ties to the Amish Mafia. Facts are facts. Ask Glenn Beck.