This letter is about gun control and “rights versus reason.” When the writers of the Constitution included the phrase “right to keep and bear arms,” the word “arms,” meaning firearms, referred to single shot muzzle loading flintlocks, not today’s modern weapons. Since any debate or legal action concerning a constitutional right includes the intent or mindset of the framers of the constitution, is it reasonable to consider the “right to bear arms” to include any weapon manufactured? Should the average citizen have the “right to keep and bear nuclear arms?”
Weapons for military use are designed to produce mass destruction and high body counts. Civilian versions of these weapons serve the same purpose. This is the attraction. People who purchase or desire to own assault-type rifles or pistols, high-power, rapid-fire weapons with high-capacity clips that can be emptied and reloaded in seconds, are thinking about human targets, not deer, rabbits, squirrels, ducks and other game. In other words, make my day, not my dinner.
Not having access to assault-type weapons will not impede any right to self-defense or hunting. In the right hands, a gun designed to take down a deer or squirrel will definitely take down a human whose intent is to do bodily harm or commit a crime that may result in injury or death to the victim of said crime. In the wrong hands, any weapon is dangerous, especially those designed for mass annihilation.
Mr Moore, do you think we could defend ourselves against a tyrannical government today if we were only armed with flintlock rifles and they with their machine guns?
We fight with a rifle,
We hunt with a gun;
Protection with pistols
and bow-hunt for fun.
I notice you mention protecting yourself from a tyrannical government. The weapon stockpilers in Waco found out that the government doesn't do half-measures when it comes to a public fight. Perhaps you have also heard of the specially trained folks in the MILITARY, BATF, POLICE FORCES of local, state and federal stripes. I do bet that you have never seen their equipment however, because only someone unaware of the government's firepower and ability to kill and destroy the smallest to largest targets with unfathomable lethality would consider fighting it.
Now, should you always just roll over for big brother? Of course not. Should you prepare for the worst? Please do. But should you think you can outgun, outsmart, outlast, or beat in any way the government in any kind of hot conflict? I say no, but I am sane. Collect 50 AR-15 for each of your 50 family members. I bet most of us can guess the outcome. Quintuple the numbers, it will end the same.
Do you think our Revolutionary ancestors took it lightly when considering revolting against a King that had military personnel stationed in local towns and their homes? They knew they were going up against the most advanced military in the world at that time.
This does not change the fact that a government can be tyrannical and the Bill of Rights give us the right to carry arms to combat this.
You may laugh at my online handle and criticize my views, but you must respect history. Freedom does not come cheap and I WILL die if need be to protect it. Your Constitutional signers had the same view. According to you, they were suicidal.
You said you shouldn't "just roll over for big brother". You think your first amendment rights are more powerful than their guns?
Regarding the editorial "Rights versus reason," I don't believe that the framers of our U.S. Constitution ever thought that the single shot muzzle loading flintlock was the last stage of progress for firearms. They, as all generations, have seen progress in the development of various categories of products. The horse and buggy, the individual mode of transportation during the framers' lives, was all they knew. And because of progress, we all enjoy 2013 transportation technology today. Yet, in my state alone, we have had over 1000 people killed by automobiles. Multiply that by 50 states! Why don't we outlaw automobiles since the framers did not have these in mind? I disagree with the gentleman who says that the only reason people who own semi-automatic firearms is to use it on people. That is not true. People have firearms for protection, food, and recreation...just like people who buy fast cars with big engines. First of all, a semi-automatic firearm is one which loads more that one round and does not have to be cocked after each round fired. That definition includes over 90% of firearms today...revolvers, shotguns, 22 rifles, etc, etc. The problem is not firearms. The problems are many...an out of control federal government which wants to control people's lives, an anti-God media, an amoral culture, etc. Why doesn't he confront the Hollywood film makers who make the movies promoting violence with guns which influences people? They are the ones crying "Gun control" but, yet, are the ones creating a culture of death.