Steve Earle: Supporting crazy is really hard but Democrats try their best

To The Daily Sun,

Enjoyed a letter from Keith Forrester in the Feb. 21 Sun. Know just how he feels that "moron" term get thrown around by leftist like spaghetti against a wall by Dem's, in lieu of "critical thinking." It's been used against all conservatives from Trump on down but actually only makes the users seem as such. But sense they can't find the words (or facts) to dispute actual success of our president or defend all those crazy socialist ideas (increasing everyone's taxes) they get desperate.

Supporting crazy is really hard. Slapping some 15-year-old or some old geezer must seem very tempting under those conditions but even asa 77-year-old who can't engage in a slap fest, I caution the tempted their shins might receive a vicious back-handed strike from my heavy old cain if their impulses can't be controlled. Bad Christian, I don't turn the other cheek..

Speaking of Dem's plans, seizing our guns is high with them but pretty low on the national, citizens concerns. But I'll still make another argument against that idea.

First just some background information to consider for discussion purposes. As I understand it our N.H. Constitution recognizes that our state militia has three components. The organized elements of the National Guard, the Naval Militia and the unorganized militia. This last is the most misunderstood so a little clarity may be in order.

N.H. law and unorganized militia:

Every able-bodied citizen over 18 or immigrant who has expressed the intention of becoming a citizen is part of the unorganized militia.

Assault rifles and unorganized militia:

Which means in the event of some disaster any of us can be called up to serve. Not of course would many of we senior citizens get a call but younger and retired military officers might? But anyway that's what it reads. So how does that relate to "assault rifles," or the military look semi-automatic rifles as anti-gun folks insist on calling them you might ask? That brings up another interesting issue.

U.S. vs Miller:

This was a case in the Supreme Court back in 1939, old news I know but still of interest to many like me. The case revolved around a Mr. Miller and his sawed off shotgun. Miller claimed the Second Amendment protected his right to own such a weapon, the government disagreed. The summery of the finding was that only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well organized militia under the 2nd amendment are free from government regulation."

Well this summery seems to me to reflect the class of weapons which can be regulated not the status of the citizen who own's such a weapon. Can we not argue that our semiautomatic rifles do indeed have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well ordered militia of which as N.H. citizens we might be called upon at any time to become? Now am I splitting hairs, sure, but nothing like what the anti-gun crowd does with their constant characterization of semiautomatic rifles as the "gun violence" problem. Most informed people know that it is criminals, not law abiding citizens, that are the problem. Somehow though liberals ignore this, refuse to address crime in general and gun crimes specifically unless it's some nut involved in a mass shooting and then usually if that nut is white, or is that just my imagination?

Steve Earle 

Gilford