.

Talk Back: Do You Agree With Sen. Zeldin?

Lee Zeldin's response to Albany's coming vote on tighter gun control measures continues debate on purpose of 2nd Amendment.

Today State Sen. Lee Zeldin released a statement on the upcoming vote in Albany to tighten gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Though Zeldin will not be present to cast his vote, he indicated in his statement that he is philosophically opposed to the measure, citing the origin and purpose of our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

"Its purpose was not so much about hunting as it was for a deeper and much more important consideration of our founding fathers," Zeldin stated, explaining that the amendment was intended to allow citizens to be properly armed should they need to rise up militarily against their own government.

Clearly Zeldin is reacting to the argument that one doesn't need an AK-47 to hunt deer or pheasant. One might need an AK-47, Zeldin seems to argue, to combat a tyrannical government and its obedient military forces.

Where do you stand on this issue? Should a line be drawn on the type of weapons citizens (law-abiding or otherwise) should have access to?  Let us know in the comments section below.

Bill Morin January 15, 2013 at 08:19 PM
Where does it end...The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment..Senator Zeldin is 100% RIGHT.
Liz R. January 15, 2013 at 08:43 PM
The 2nd Amendment calls for the right to bear arms to form a well-regulated militia. We have a military. Citizens do not need AK-47's or other assault weapons in their homes. Want a handgun for protection? Fine. Want a rifle for hunting? Go right ahead. But an Assault Weapon? Absolutely not. This is not 1776 as much as Tea Partiers would like to believe it is.
Joe January 15, 2013 at 08:48 PM
I agree with him totally!
Mike Rotolo January 15, 2013 at 08:48 PM
The 2nd amendment was put in place in case the citizens needed to fight the military! Like it or not these elected officials swore to defend and UPHOLD the constitution. It clearly states "NOT TO BE INFRINGED". To do so is crimanal and grounds for removale
Joe January 15, 2013 at 08:49 PM
100% accurate
Bill Morin January 15, 2013 at 08:52 PM
The problem comes when the government classifies almost EVERY gun as an assault weapon...
Tom Smith January 15, 2013 at 10:27 PM
The meaning of the 2nd amendment is quite clear, our founding fathers needed an army to fight for and maintain independence from what were then more powerful and aggressive nations. The easiest way to achieve this was an armed citizenry, no more no less. The founding fathers also called the 2nd amendment an "amendment", meaning "to alter or change" to describe the articles of the Constitution clearly understanding way back then that the rule would need to change with changing times. These amendments come and go as we all know, lucky we didn't live when booze was illegal or we'd be in real trouble. Look at how long France and England have prospered as democracies, hundreds of years longer than us in America. The public there have no less liberty or freedom than Americans do, yet they have very little rights to own guns. No run away tyrannical leaders there, just well managed democratic governments, no better than ours. The citizens there, like us, have a power far greater than any gun, it's called the right to VOTE, sounds corny but it's true. The very idea that we need guns, any kind of gun, to fight the US government in the future is just plain silly. The idea that the 2nd amendment somehow safeguards your freedom is a lie, presented to you by the gun lobby which is driven by gun manufacturers and their need make more money and stay in business by selling more guns, they could care less about your freedom.
Liz R. January 15, 2013 at 10:45 PM
Well said!
Bill Morin January 15, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Tell that to the Holocaust victims...Maybe they should have VOTED Hitler out...Tell all the police HERE to not carry guns just like jolly ole' England, see how fast the tune changes when you try to take their guns away...
Bill L January 16, 2013 at 12:04 AM
How can Zeldin even comment on something he didn't even go to vote on. Seems like he ducked the issue by staying away and not being heard on the floor. He can tell us how he feels on this issue but thats all it is ...TALK.
Fan Man January 16, 2013 at 04:40 PM
Liz R Your the reason that we fight against any gun law changes.someone like you that knows nothing about guns but thinks the new laws will help stop the violence in any small way.you are so wrong. First over 80% of assault rifles sold are the smaller caliper. Which means most hunting rifles are a lot more powerful than your scary looking assault rifle.the real issue from Connecticut should have been mental health and the drugs like effexor that is the leading country in sucicde s. But cause its a 50 billion dollar drug we won't go there.please stop talking about my gun rights until you know something about guns.
ROBERT T REILLY January 16, 2013 at 09:16 PM
B OB REILLY SR I AGREE WITH SENATE LEE ZELDIN WHAT A STANDUP SENATER LEE IS I AM TO LIVE IN DISTRICT
don thornton January 16, 2013 at 10:22 PM
I AGREE WITH OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!
Harriet J Helman January 17, 2013 at 09:16 AM
Good News about Hitler...HE DEMANDED THAT THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY HAVE GUNS...YES, THEY HAD BEEN OUTLAWED, BUT HITLER TURNED THAT AROUND! All fascists supported guns for their people. OUR GUNS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HOUSED BY AMERICAN MEN WHO WOULD SERVE IN THE MILITARY...NOT TO OVERTHROW OUR GOVERNMENT (WHICH THEY JUST FOUGHT TO ESTABLISH), BUT TO PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT FROM FOREIGN ATTACKS!!! HERE ARE THE EXACT WORDS: "A well-regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE (not for your individual protection, but for the protection of the govetnment), the right of the people to keep and bear arms(in order to protect the STATE, not themselves), shall not be infringed. WELL REGULATED MEANS LAWS MUST CONTROL THEM, BUT NOT BE INFRINGED, MEANT THAT THEY COULDN'T BE TOTALLY ELIMINATED BECAUSE WE NEEDED THOSE GUYS TO BRING THEIR MUSKETS TO FIGHT THE ENGLISH!!! OOMMGGG! THEY COULD NOT HAVE MADE THEMSELVES CLEARER...
Karen S January 19, 2013 at 03:44 PM
Please reread your American and World History.
Karen S January 19, 2013 at 03:47 PM
Tom Smith needs to reread American and World History
Bill Morin January 19, 2013 at 04:37 PM
Karen S. is absolutely RIGHT....
jim polichak January 20, 2013 at 08:47 PM
The Founding Father's idea was that the only way that the Colonists were able to overthrow the British was to be armed as well as the British were armed. The Second Amendment was passed when it was assumed that every able-bodied male would be a member of a militia that would protect the nation from foreign invasion. Many of the Founding Fathers refused to support the adoption of the then new Federal Constitution {to replace the original form of American government} with a guarantee that American public be armed on a par with the new Federal Government. I don't think that we really need to depend upon the members of the NRA and hunting clubs to repel invaders from Canada and Mexico today and the arms wielded by Federal Government dwarf any arms that its citizenry could ever collectively hold. So, unless you plan on buying and keeping ICBMs armed with atomic weapons to protect yourself from the Feds; you might as well give up your assault weapons, too, so the is no chance that they might fall into the wrong hands and kill innocent children again. Remember, the weapons that killed the children of Sandy Hook were stolen. Can anyone absolutely guarantee that their weapons will never be stolen? Is your hobby really more important than children's lives?
jim polichak January 20, 2013 at 08:50 PM
The Founding Father's idea was that the only way that the Colonists were able to overthrow the British was to be armed as well as the British were armed. The Second Amendment was passed when it was assumed that every able-bodied male would be a member of a militia that would protect the nation from foreign invasion. Many of the Founding Fathers refused to support the adoption of the then new Federal Constitution {to replace the original form of American government} with a guarantee that American public be armed on a par with the new Federal Government. I don't think that we really need to depend upon the members of the NRA and hunting clubs to repel invaders from Canada and Mexico today and the arms wielded by Federal Government dwarf any arms that its citizenry could ever collectively hold. So, unless you plan on buying and keeping ICBMs armed with atomic weapons to protect yourself from the Feds; you might as well give up your assault weapons, too, so the is no chance that they might fall into the wrong hands and kill innocent children again. Remember, the weapons that killed the children of Sandy Hook were stolen. Can anyone absolutely guarantee that their weapons will never be stolen? Is your hobby really more important than children's lives?
jim polichak January 20, 2013 at 08:51 PM
The Founding Father's idea was that the only way that the Colonists were able to overthrow the British was to be armed as well as the British were armed. The Second Amendment was passed when it was assumed that every able-bodied male would be a member of a militia that would protect the nation from foreign invasion. Many of the Founding Fathers refused to support the adoption of the then new Federal Constitution {to replace the original form of American government} with a guarantee that American public be armed on a par with the new Federal Government. I don't think that we really need to depend upon the members of the NRA and hunting clubs to repel invaders from Canada and Mexico today and the arms wielded by Federal Government dwarf any arms that its citizenry could ever collectively hold. So, unless you plan on buying and keeping ICBMs armed with atomic weapons to protect yourself from the Feds; you might as well give up your assault weapons, too, so the is no chance that they might fall into the wrong hands and kill innocent children again. Remember, the weapons that killed the children of Sandy Hook were stolen. Can anyone absolutely guarantee that their weapons will never be stolen? Is your hobby really more important than children's lives?
jim polichak January 20, 2013 at 08:52 PM
The Founding Father's idea was that the only way that the Colonists were able to overthrow the British was to be armed as well as the British were armed. The Second Amendment was passed when it was assumed that every able-bodied male would be a member of a militia that would protect the nation from foreign invasion. Many of the Founding Fathers refused to support the adoption of the then new Federal Constitution {to replace the original form of American government} with a guarantee that American public be armed on a par with the new Federal Government. I don't think that we really need to depend upon the members of the NRA and hunting clubs to repel invaders from Canada and Mexico today and the arms wielded by Federal Government dwarf any arms that its citizenry could ever collectively hold. So, unless you plan on buying and keeping ICBMs armed with atomic weapons to protect yourself from the Feds; you might as well give up your assault weapons, too, so the is no chance that they might fall into the wrong hands and kill innocent children again. Remember, the weapons that killed the children of Sandy Hook were stolen. Can anyone absolutely guarantee that their weapons will never be stolen? Is your hobby really more important than children's lives?
Harriet J Helman January 20, 2013 at 09:09 PM
Except, of course, THAT HE'S WRONG...THE SECOND AMENDMENT CLEARLY STATES THAT MILITIAS ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE STATE! THAT MEANS TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT...WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??? A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE STATE...NOT OF INDIVIDUALS, OR THEIR HOMES, BUT OF THE STATE!!!!! OMG!
Harriet J Helman January 20, 2013 at 09:11 PM
It stops when all of you actually READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT...A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE STATE...NOT FOR YOUR PRIVATE USE!
jim polichak January 20, 2013 at 09:39 PM
To>>> Harriet J Helman Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and a good number of other Founding Fathers opposed our current Constitution and boycotted the Constitutional Convention. Patrick Henry "smelt a rat in Philadelphia"! The state of Rhode Island boycotted the Constitutional Convention! Had these Founding Fathers attended the document would be very different today. The Bill of Rights were attempt to placate them since they still had the ear of a good many Americans. In the context of history the Second Amendment was included to seek the support of men who had recently overthrown an oppressive government and were very concerned with the Confederated form of government that was to be replaced by a centralized Federal government. One other point of interest>>> Our Constitution is legal under itself; It is a grievous violation of the original constitution of the United States - The Articles of Confederation. On a personal note: One of my ancestors was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something