This page is written to inform and educate the public about media bias. Materials duplicated on this page are intended to illustrate my criticism of The Lebanon Daily News and it's editorial policies. They are being published here to put the whole issue in context.
On Friday May 25, The Lebanon Daily News published a letter written by Fred Goudy of South Lebanon Twp. On Saturday, June 2, 2007, The Lebanon Daily News published my response. The editors knife was not kind and most of my main arguments were neutered. In order to show the full context of what was written, this page contains four letters, Mr. Goudy's, the entire letter I wrote in response, the one that was published, and the one I wrote chastising the Lebanon Daily News for its censorship.
No right to have a shootout
(Lebanon Daily News, May 25, 2007)
Editor:
Recently, state Rep. RoseMarie Swanger took a stand opposed
to gun controls citing that her constituents were opposed to the same. I wrote
to Swanger and suggested she is not accurately assessing her constituents. The
inclusive embodiment of all constituents without polling the citizenry is
without merit.
I recognize that there are many hunters among her
constituents, and I recognize that it is impossible to "un-invent" firearms.
But, it is possible to insert gun controls and not violate the Second Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
The Second 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."
In its only extended treatment of the amendment, the Supreme
Court in United States v. Miller (1939) gave guidance: "With obvious purpose to
assure the continuation and render possible effectiveness of such forces
(militia) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It
must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Again, I remind that we
cannot "un-invent" the gun so we need to learn how to protect people from the
misuse of same.
The NRA continues to oppose gun controls. Many who oppose gun
controls see the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as
protecting a citizen's right to own and bear arms. That, most assuredly, was not
the intent of the amendment.
I do not hunt. Yes, I do eat meat. Let's defuse the trite
arguments that might cross the lips of the uninformed. I believe we should
govern our actions to address our needs on the food chain as humanely as
possible and not kill for fun or pleasure. I shudder to consider the Wild West
mentality of carrying a gun for protection as we go about our business. I
believe we have more to fear from those "good guys" who tote guns than we ever
have to fear as we go about our daily routine.
Imagine living in a neighborhood where carrying guns is the
norm. Imagine living in neighborhoods where toting is considered being a "real
man." I believe if a question was posed to the men, women and children who now
live within those compounds if they like living with those guns there would be a
resounding "No!"
I ask Swanger to find a way to control the abomination of
violence living in our neighborhoods. There must be a sensible way to make all
of our neighborhoods safer. And please take the Lead in reminding all the people
that the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects the
people's right to act as a militia (as was the case in the late 18th century)
and not the right of people to recreate the shootout at the O.K. Corral.
Fred Goudy
South Lebanon
My Letter as I Submitted to The Lebanon Daily News
Editor
I am always amazed at the capacity of the liberal left,
particularly the anti gun crowd, to obfuscate. Fred Goudy's arguments clearly
are so far off base as to border on out and out lies.
First, let us take a close look at the legislation which Rose
Marie Swanger was referring to. This proposed bill, if passed, would be a state
law. In this case the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. Article I, Section 21 of the
Constitution Of Pennsylvania clearly states, "The right of the citizens to bear
arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." So, you
see, we do have a right to use guns for self defense.
But, even if it were the 2nd Amendment standard that we were
relying on, again Mr. Goudy tries to confuse us by taking the entire Miller case
out of context. "Miller" was not about the right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, it was about what kind of arms they were allowed to have. Miller was
arrested for possessing a sawed off shotgun. Sawed off shotguns were made
illegal in the Gun Control act of 1934.
But as is the usual ploy of the liberal left, the quote Mr.
Goudy used was taken out of context. Let me enlighten you what the rest of the
opinion says after the sentence he used
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the
Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in
view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and
train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were
forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time
strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense
of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily,
soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from
the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough
that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for
the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And
further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the
time."
The real ruling set forth by the Supreme Court in Miller was,
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time
has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right
to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use
could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph.,
Tenn., 154, 158."
Miller was dead by the time his case reached the Supreme
Court and no one showed up to argue that sawed off shotguns were frequently used
as a short range defensive weapon in trench warfare during WWI. This ruling
merely stated that the judges knew of no such use. It is possible that someday
this ruling could be overturned if the situation were revisited. Perhaps when
you try to take our self loading homeland defense rifles. (Assault weapons for
those of you in Rio Linda)
As for the "Wild West" argument. It is an old and tired one.
"Shall issue" concealed carry laws have been around for about 20 years or so.
Currently there are at least 38 states that have them. Pennsylvania has had one
for 12 years. Every time a state considers these laws the gun control crowd
pulls out the "Oh no! It will be the OK Corral. There will be blood in the
streets!" argument.
It hasn't happened. People are not gun fighting over parking
spaces and other inconsequential issues. There is no wild west. There is no
blood in the streets, at least not from lawfully licensed owners. A quick Google
search showed that since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02%
of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by
license holders. Similar statistics show up everywhere that concealed carry laws
are enacted.
In fact, licensed gun owners use their guns almost 2 million
times each year to thwart crime. Most of the time the gun is only displayed and
never even fired.
Then you show your naiveté. You say "Imagine living in a
neighborhood where carrying guns is the norm." Open your eyes. People all around
you are carrying guns. You just don't see them, hence the term "concealed
carry". The nice thing about this is, if you don't know who is carrying, then
neither do the bad guys.
But guess what? Since you wrote your letter, it is a good bet
that the bad guys know that you are unarmed and easy prey. You might as well
have put a sign on your home that proudly says "Gun Free Zone". Now wouldn't
that be a novel idea?
Finally, let me close with one last thought. Most anti-gun
people such as yourself believe that only the police, government agents and the
military should have guns. Do you really want George Bush and Alberto Gonzales
to be in charge of the only people who have guns?
I thought not.
Richard Mase
Lebanon
What The Lebanon Daily News Published
Guns are out there, and that's OK
(Lebanon Daily News, June 2, 2007)
Editor:
Fred Goudy's arguments in his recent letter are far off base.
For the legislation that Rose-Marie Swanger was referring to,
the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the case. Article I, Section 21 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution states, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in
defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." We have a right to
use guns for self defense.
Even were it the Second Amendment we were relying on, Goudy
tries to confuse us by taking the entire U.S. v. Miller case out of context.
Miller was not about the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, it was
about one type of weapon. Miller was arrested for possessing a sawed-off
shotgun, made illegal in the Gun Control Act of 1934.
The quote Goudy used was taken out of context. The rest of
the opinion, after the sentence Goudy quoted, says:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible "the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the
Second Amendment were made.
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and
train is set in contrast with Troops which they ... were forbidden to keep. ...
"(T)he debates in the Convention, the history and legislation
of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators ... show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense."
The real ruling in Miller was, "In the absence of any
evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of
less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we
cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such
an instrument."
Miller was dead by the time his case reached the Supreme
Court, and no one argued on his behalf.
As for the "Wild West" argument, it is old and tired one.
"Shall issue" concealed-carry laws have been around for about 20 years. At least
38 states have them. Pennsylvania has had one for 12 years. Every time a state
considers these laws, the gun-control crowd pulls out the O.K. Corral argument.
A quick Google search shows that since the carry law went
into effect in 1987, less than 0.02 percent of Florida carry permits have been
revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders.
Then Goudy shows his naivete. He says, "Imagine living in a
neighborhood where carrying guns is the norm."
People all around him are carrying guns - he just doesn't see
them. Hence, "concealed carry." If you don't know who is carrying, neither do
the bad guys.
Richard Mase
Lebanon
My Letter Chastising The Lebanon Daily News
Editor
The editor's scissors can be sharp and merciful or dull
and painful. This time it was more like a meat grinder because it turned the
meat of my arguments in my last letter into hamburger. It also shows me the anti
gun bias of The Lebanon Daily News.
It is unfortunate that you did not allow your readers to see
all of what I quoted from the majority opinion in Miller vs. The United States.
It clearly shows the intent of the founders that the right to keep and bear arms
is an individual right and not a state right to have a national guard.
The sentence I am referring to was not even replaced by three
periods showing that it had been cut. The editor merely truncated the sentence
after the words "common defense".
While I understand the need for brevity in such letters and
the News' policy on word limit, your execution of editorial privilege shows your
hypocrisy. In your own editorials you proclaim support for the First Amendment
then you censor scholarly debate on positions which you oppose.
For those of you with Internet access, the entire content of
my last letter is posted at http://rickmase.highspeedweb.net/censored.htm.
Richard Mase
Lebanon