Editor: In Dave Perry’s editorial, Rep. Crow says in his anti-gun commercial that “…semi-automatic rifles with explosive rounds are created and used in military battle.” Then he says, “This nonsense about using AR-15s for ranching or home defense is a sales pitch by the gun lobby.” As you would expect from an anti-2nd Amendment representative, Crow paints the picture in the narrative he’s trying to sell.
I’m not aware of explosive ammo for AR-15s being readily available in our country. I’m gonna guess that what he meant to say is that the 223 round is a very high velocity bullet that can do great damage to the target.
If you’ve fired a rifle that shoots the 223 round, I’m pretty sure that you’d agree it’s a very comfortable rifle to shoot. And that’s one of the primary reasons it’s so popular. But the far more important point is understanding the purpose of our 2nd Amendment.
Listening to most Democrats and the main stream media (MSM), you’d think our forefathers included it in our Bill of Rights just so we could hunt and defend ourselves. Read the Federalist Papers again…..the primary reason was so our citizens, if ever necessary, would have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. So lets quit with the “shooting armed platoons of raccoons” BS.
Rep. Crow ran as a moderate in his first campaign to the U.S House. He made sure voters knew of his military background to convince them. His 2020 re-election was helped by a weak GOP candidate opponent, bias media support, and the anti-Trump movement.
Now we have his voting record in the U.S. House, and it’s 99% the same as Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s. Hopefully, the good citizens of the 6th Congressional District are waking up to the mess he, the democrats, and the POTUS are responsible for. He’s shown his true allegiances to the very liberal/socialist side and must be defeated this November.
— George Parker, via letters@sentinelcolorado.com
The statement that the Second Amendment was written to give the people the means by which to “overthrow a tyrannical government” is patently false.
The Constitution expressly states that making war on the United States is treason, which, as we know is punishable by death. No constitution provides for its own destruction, and the Second Amendment, which is a part of the Constitution, did not change that. That the amendment is tied to the militia is proof of that, since Congress had obtained a tremendous role over the militia, up to and including providing for federal control of the militia in almost every respect. It is no coincidence that the modern militia of the Constitution is called the National Guard.
You seem oblivious to the amendment’s legislative history, meaning the debates preceding its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. At no time in those debates did anyone state it was to be used to overthrow the government. Congress, in the Constitution, had been granted the power to …”call[] forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”. It is a little difficult to claim, then, that the militia could “suppress insurrections” while simultaneously engaging in one.
It is nonsensical to both charge the militia with suppressing insurrections and at the same time provide for a right to engage in them. The framers were not stupid, nor was the first Congress. You are promoting an interpretation of the amendment that has no historical basis.
Read the records of debate. You will find no support for your “insurrectionist” claim.
Indeed, the very wording of the Second Amendment calls for a “well-regulated militia” at its core. Nothing else needs to be read but the very text of the amendment. People do so only in an effort to bolster their own interpretations of the Constitution, which is able to stand on its own and speak for itself.
It’s interesting that this writer mentions “armies of raccoons,” which is verbiage coined by republicans and then ridiculed by Democrats. But the real point of this letter has nothing to do with guns and is revealed in the last sentence. We here in the Sixth happen to think Rep. Crow has a done a great job representing us and we don’t need someone telling us what we should think or how we should vote.
There are many of us in the sixth that believe Jason Crow has not represented us or our feelings in any way so now you, Joe, are the one telling us what we should think. Think a bit about the other side before you make your outrageous statements.
When was the last time we had a tyrannical government? (Trump tried but couldn’t put it in place).
When was the last time we had a mass shooting?
Gun regulation is badly needed. Those who oppose it go against the Second Amendment which includes the words WELL REGULATED.