RetiredUSNChief
Member
This is the title to a recent letter to the editor in The Virginian-Pilot. Here's the content:
The latest spate of shootings leaves many people wondering why we are not discussing the need for more stringent gun-control laws. Of course, the gun enthusiasts and the National Rifle Association will continue to cry that criminals will always find a way to buy guns, no matter what laws are put into effect. While that mantra is true, the fact is that criminals are not committing these senseless massacres, such as the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine, the Sikh temple, and on and on and on.
These shootings were committed by 'law-abiding' citizens who happened to have psychological issues. We do not need gun-control laws to protect us from criminals; we need gun-control laws to protect us from law-abiding citizens.
Source: http://hamptonroads.com/2012/08/danger-gun-hand
I know the subject of gun-control laws has come up repeatedly here, but this particular article jumped out to me because of the closing statement...the part I put in bold.
This was the first time I have actually seen in writing any kind of statement which boldly proclaimed a need for "gun-control laws to protect us from law-abiding citizens". All other articles I've ever read only alluded to this indirectly, requiring people to read between the lines in order to arrive at this not-so-hidden message.
Politicians usually stay away from such bold statements, because the backlash is strong against it. It's politically good to address such issues with respect to criminals, to child safety, and accidents; and political doom to address it with respect to law-abiding citizens.
But this lady is not a politician...she's an ordinary citizen, like the rest of us. She would appear to be a prime example of someone to whom Ben Franklin was speaking of when he said that anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. And, despite the gains made in the last two or three decades, the numbers of such people are growing.
As a conversation on this topic, how would you go about continuing to secure our right to keep and bear arms over the long term?
I'm not talking about people-bashing for their pro-gun control beliefs. Remember, not all of these people are "out to take away our rights": some of these people honestly don't know of any better way to deter such acts than by gun-control laws. I'm talking about ultimately maintaining the right to keep and bear arms, through thick and thin as the years and decades pass us by, even though some people would have us give up that right.
Let's hear your ideas.
The latest spate of shootings leaves many people wondering why we are not discussing the need for more stringent gun-control laws. Of course, the gun enthusiasts and the National Rifle Association will continue to cry that criminals will always find a way to buy guns, no matter what laws are put into effect. While that mantra is true, the fact is that criminals are not committing these senseless massacres, such as the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine, the Sikh temple, and on and on and on.
These shootings were committed by 'law-abiding' citizens who happened to have psychological issues. We do not need gun-control laws to protect us from criminals; we need gun-control laws to protect us from law-abiding citizens.
Source: http://hamptonroads.com/2012/08/danger-gun-hand
I know the subject of gun-control laws has come up repeatedly here, but this particular article jumped out to me because of the closing statement...the part I put in bold.
This was the first time I have actually seen in writing any kind of statement which boldly proclaimed a need for "gun-control laws to protect us from law-abiding citizens". All other articles I've ever read only alluded to this indirectly, requiring people to read between the lines in order to arrive at this not-so-hidden message.
Politicians usually stay away from such bold statements, because the backlash is strong against it. It's politically good to address such issues with respect to criminals, to child safety, and accidents; and political doom to address it with respect to law-abiding citizens.
But this lady is not a politician...she's an ordinary citizen, like the rest of us. She would appear to be a prime example of someone to whom Ben Franklin was speaking of when he said that anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. And, despite the gains made in the last two or three decades, the numbers of such people are growing.
As a conversation on this topic, how would you go about continuing to secure our right to keep and bear arms over the long term?
I'm not talking about people-bashing for their pro-gun control beliefs. Remember, not all of these people are "out to take away our rights": some of these people honestly don't know of any better way to deter such acts than by gun-control laws. I'm talking about ultimately maintaining the right to keep and bear arms, through thick and thin as the years and decades pass us by, even though some people would have us give up that right.
Let's hear your ideas.