Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


The Founders intended ‘people’s’ rights extend to individuals

  • Published in Letters

To The Daily Sun,

Everyone needs to remember the first article of the New Hampshire Constitution, which reads: Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government: All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

This was and is the foundation of our government as of June 2, 1784 and, by extension, the federal government.

When persons state the "people" does not mean the individual, who is it the "people" are?

When New Hampshire and the other 12 states worked to create the Constitution of the United States of America, they sought to establish it. Article 1 establishes the Congress, Article 2 the Presidency and Article 3 the Judiciary; 4 through 6 you can read yourself and 7 clarified the rule for acceptance.

So done, the states then sought to amend the Constitution to limit the federal governments authority, such is the "Bill of Rights" — The states' rights and the people's (i.e. the individuals).

The various states had experienced a national government's use of force, the Boston Massacre for one; the disbanding of the Colonial government for another. Since that time, several hundred million individuals have been killed by their governments (their citizens having no "right to bear arms") and that reality continues even as you read this.

Those wishing to limit the individual's (and the states') rights to arms need only to amend the U.S. Constitution. Their problem – it’s the only legal and constitutional method and it requires the permission (vote) of the majority of the legal voters of the states (not a popular national vote total). (Note: Ted Kennedy wanted national health care. He was in office 47 years and never once sought an amendment, Why not? Certainly in 47 years he could have.

As a liberal, he would have had to recognize the people's authority and get their permission. He would have had to work within the confines of the Constitution, recognize it is the law of the land, that the U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democratic state. (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html ).

The states were protecting themselves from the federal government; no one even imagined the individual not being allowed the possession and use of arms (bow and arrow included), especially for defense.

G.W. Brooks