********************************************
Additional Text for the 10/25/04 Alumni Sandstorm 
********************************************
>>From: Gilbert Blankenship ('81)

Re: Gun Control
    On gun control:

Wow - what an interesting discussion line. It is really
interesting how much discussion the First and Second
Amendments have generated in the past 20 or so years.

I frequently run into these discussions out here in the
Northeast and there are some pretty heavy feelings on the
issue on the Second Amendment. What really gets me in
these discussions is people (on both sides) constantly
(not so much in this thread) saying "That's not what the
Second Amendment says" - but when asked they cannot state
what the second amendment says. So, here it is:

"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."

Now, I am no constitutional lawyer (but I did stay at a
Holiday Inn Express last night). It would seem to me that
the intent of this is to have a country of people, who
having grown up with weapons, and knowing how to use them,
could be quickly formed into a militia if needed in order
to protect their own country.

Having weapons experience, such a people could be rapidly
trained focusing more on the chain of command and the
concepts of war and not so much on weapons.

(As an aside with my own personal experience I recall that
fully 1/6 of my Marine Corps basic training was spent
specifically on one weapon (M16). Additional time was
spent on other weapons.)

Further, if people were to study constitutional law they
would discover that Miller v. U.S. (1939) kinda bears this
out with the court finding what type of weapons are
specifically covered by the Second Amendment. However
revisionists apparently re-write Miller v. U.S. an in
attempt to disguise the issue.

This case involved persons charged with failing to pay
federal taxes on a sawed-off shotgun. The court concluded
that the weapon was NOT covered by the Second Amendment.

Miller v. U.S. 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In this last case
(Miller, 1939), the Supreme Court explicitly stated the
Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep 
and bear arms, particularly protecting military-styled
(assault) weapons which are considered "part of the
ordinary military equipment."
(from http://www.haciendapub.com/comm13.html)

So, I guess it's time to exchange my old rusted 12-gauge
for a brand new HK-MP7.

In-so-much as crime goes, I fully believe that each and
every citizen already has the right to decide not to have
a weapon in the home. However, for those of us who live in
high-crime areas (for what ever reason) it is NOT within
your right to determine that I may or may not have a
weapon in my house. My personal opinion is that every
American has the right to protect themselves, their homes,
belongings and loved ones in whatever manner they see fit
for their particular situation.

I find it kind of repulsive that elected representatives
of the people, with their million dollar homes and 30
second security police response times, fail to see the
need for personal protection of the common man. Their
argument states that once you outlaw guns, no one will
have them. Unfortunately (as previously stated) this is
not the case. Criminals will obtain guns. They will make
them out of household items. They will find a way to get
they jump on you so that when they break into your house,
or rob your convenience store, you will be at their mercy.

Think of it this way. You're a criminal - you are faced with
two homes to rob. In the window of one home is a sign that
reads "Protected by Smith and Wesson". In the window of
the other home is a sign "Ban the use of guns". Which
would you feel safer robbing?

In my case, I am a military veteran who has been awarded
multiple Expert qualification ratings on multiple weapons.
I know exactly what gun control is - a well aimed, slow
squeezed, shot which hits dead center each and every time.

And that ladies and gentlemen is my political diatribe
for now. And with that I will return to scanning pictures.

-Gilbert Blankenship ('81)
********************************************