April 26, 2007

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

Brent Grant of Kennett Square uses the VA Tech massacre as an excuse for "strict" gun control nationwide:

The events in Virginia emphasize the need for strict gun control laws nationally. If one wants to know what a future of rampant gun possession looks like, go to Iraq.

I shutter to think what the U.S. quality of life would be if everyone carried a weapon. It would be short and cruel, just as it is in Iraq and many other areas of our globe. Security would be impossible to maintain, as it already is in certain urban areas.

He'd "shutter"? What, is he a camera or something? Oh, SHUDDER!

First, not many Americans believe that everyone should carry a weapon. Second, anyone can pick and choose an "example" of what "rampant gun possession" looks like. For instance, I could say "What about Switzerland?" Exactly -- the number of gun deaths there is miniscule. There are also areas within the United States that allow folks to carry to guns and have very low gun crime rates.

There are those who purport that when women in Florida started carrying weapons, robberies declined. Did the same thing happen in North Philadelphia when many people there started carrying guns?

For every argument the National Rifle Association makes, one can find an equally valid counterargument. The whole issue comes down to values. Values are built by families and communities. Neighborhoods of families with high values will be safe.

But you've just made the NRA's and many others' argument for them here, Brent: You've proven that it isn't the guns, it's the people. Maybe we should allow federalism to work here? Let each state and locality decide what's best for them?

If people want to carry arms, they should be inducted into a well-regulated militia as the Second Amendment states.

Do we really think most of the people who use guns would also serve in a militia? Maybe every gun owner should be required to register with one.

Ah yes, yet another individual ignorant of the 2nd Amendment's history. I do not want to get into that history here; nevertheless, a standing army was frowned upon by the Founders, yet we now have one. But the clauses "being necessary to the security of a free state" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" also pertain to the citizenry's protection against government tyranny, not just protection against foreign invaders. It may seem an archaic concept today -- the citizens using guns against their own tyrannical government ... after all, the government has all the BIG weapons -- but would a [future] US administration [potentially] hesitate against infringing on the populace's rights if all guns were absolutely banned ... except for the military? I doubt it. Knowing that an average joe can get, and own, a gun will always make those in charge hesitate about extending their power.

Be sure to check out this opportune image.

Posted by Hube at April 26, 2007 05:35 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)