VOICE OF THE PEOPLE | Oct. 5

Interpreting the Second Amendment

It seems that incidents of death by firearms are a constant in the news media. Especially after a mass killing spree, it is inevitable that calls for stricter gun control are heard, followed closely by demands for Second Amendment “rights.” However, does a person really have these rights merely by virtue of U.S. citizenship?

A look a the amendment in question presents a possible different interpretation. More than 200 years ago, the Founding Fathers showed great wisdom in affirming rights for American citizens. Many gun owners are quick to quote “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, it possibly throws a different light on the interpretation of this “right” to include the first part: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”

In those days, Francis Marion rose from he rank of captain to lieutenant-colonel to brigadier-general in the 2nd South Carolina Regiment. Col. William Moultrie, of the 2nd South Carolina Regiment, was later awarded the rank of brigadier- general after successfully repelling the British in their first attempt to capture Charleston. Both of these men held rank, wore a uniform and owed loyalty to the state governor in a “well regulated militia.”

Today, our well regulated militia is composed of the of the men and women of the National Guard. It seems to me that Second Amendment certainly applies to anyone currently on active duty with the Guard. However, I'm not convinced that the Second Amendment applies to the population in general.

Kurt Lemhouse

York

Let's have insurance for all Americans

A universal single-payer, not-for-profit health care plan is being screamed down by those on the right side of the aisle as free medical care, i.e. socialized medicine.

Our senators work hard for the people of this state and the rest of our nation, too. I would like to see this president sign a law that would reform America's health care system.

I am praying that it will contain language for a universal single-payer, not-for-profit option, and that would include a provision for charging premiums and co-pays to help defray some of the cost in running the plan. We all know that those premiums would not need to be anywhere near the bloated rates for-profit insurance companies are charging.

The plan could be designed on the model of how the school lunch program is being ran across the nation — some students pay full price; some students pay reduced price; and some students get free lunch.

My family has a government health insurance plan, BeneFeds, and we pay full price for our children's lunch at school. I don't know if my family will benefit from health care reform but I am positive a lot of families in this state and around this nation most assuredly will.

Michael Long

York