Thursday | December 14, 2017
About Us | Contact | Subscribe

Your Views for September 20

Right to bear arms

It’s always interesting to hear or read people’s interpretations of our Bill of Rights.

Joan Hildal’s letter to the editor (Tribune-Herald, Your Views, Sept. 19) was no exception, and she made the typical erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment gave more regulatory power to the government with her position that “well regulated militia” means laws.

The Bill of Rights comprises the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and was written by James Madison in response to the demands by anti-federalists to limit the power of government and give greater protection of individual liberties.

In the Second Amendment, the term “well regulated” at the time meant in proper working order or functioning as expected, and “militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” was seen as a means of securing liberty at the hands of a tyrannical government by the people as a militia standing against it. Many of the founders saw that disarming the populace was an effectual way for governments to control them.

The final portion of the Second Amendment is clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In a sense, it doesn’t matter the reason behind it: The right shall not be infringed, period.

Perhaps some don’t see the need for the Second Amendment in modern times, but revision of our basic rights as established by the founders should only be done through the amending process as established by Article V of the Constitution.

Those who feel strongly about restricting our right to keep and bear arms should lobby for an amendment to the Constitution instead of whittling away at it through unconstitutional legislation and revisionist interpretations.

Don Rudny

Pepeekeo

Punish Equifax

This is a letter that I sent today to U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz.

Regarding Equifax: Brian, I remember when Enron deceived the public. Its accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, which was seen as complicit, was forced out of business. The blatant abuses of the “plutocracy” have become untenable.

Circa 1884, “This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations and for corporations.” — Rutherford B. Hayes, President.

If we expect food purveyors to not poison their customers then we should hold other business to standards of customer protection. A company that collects and profits from consumer data and in turn doesn’t operate at the pinnacle of protective standards should lose the privilege of marketplace access. Put them out of business and raise the bar of performance.

If corporations are going to rule, then use the competitive power to inflict pain on the wrong-doers.

John Begg

Pahoa

 

Rules for posting comments