It would be grand if those who write letters to Voices knew the subject before throwing their keyboard at the newspaper. Such is the content of the letter to voices 07-16-2008. The writer took umbrage with Meredith Oakley’s column on the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling. That won’t be discussed but what he wrote in regard to the Amendment is the subject of the following rebuttal.

Apparently, he doesn’t like the ruling, but that isn’t made all that clear in the letter. He questions the right to keep a gun and then asks why the amendment has the word keep rather than own. To make the lesson short, The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary definition has many definitions for the word keep, one of which is to posses as in own. Actually, the word keep has a greater depth of meaning than does the word own. It has the meaning of To have in custody for security or preservation. That is a much greater responsibility than mere ownership.

He further questioned the word people instead of person. Again, Webster’s 1812 Dictionary reveals it means The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. Since the word people means persons collectively, the meaning encompasses all persons as a group and singularly as individuals. What is a right for the people as a group of persons is a right for a single person.

Then he wanted to dispute the words well-regulated in that it might refer to state or local governments. The word regulated as used in the Constitution means Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions. The rules and restrictions were age and the ability to handle a firearm responsibly. Well has the meaning of to spring or issue forth. In other words, in time of need the people will spring forth to defend their rights without being told to do so by the government. That is freedom and liberty and it goes without saying that there are those in the world today that despise that liberty.

He took off on the minimum wage, thinking that the minimum wage should be high enough to be a living wage so that the worker can be provided with necessities; food, clothes, shelter and health care. He wanted to know what is wrong with that. The wrong is that it isn’t the government’s business or duty to set a minimum wage to facilitate the purchase of the necessities of life. What right does the government have to issue a mandate to a businesses or employers dictating the scale of wages they must pay? Wages are a function of the labor supply, training, knowledge and other factors, including demand for the product or service of the business. It isn’t the function of government to set an arbitrary level for any reason.

It is a sad commentary on the educational level of the citizens of this nation when they demonstrate such a lack of knowledge and or understanding of the Constitution, the role of government and the responsibilities of each individual citizen relative to all aspects of our existence in this country. More and more people believe that government should hand to them all they need to exist. When government gives the hand outs it is an existence that has no resemblance to living life with liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. If whining for more handouts is pursuing happiness, then those people yelping for more have no idea what happiness entails. Happiness is not living off of others or attempting to deny them their rights to own firearms as stated in the Second Amendment.

© 07-18-2008 DEC