Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Letter to the Editor
The current brouhaha about guns is growing and ongoing, with both sides staking out their positions. One side reasonable and sane, the other intransigent and crazy.
Gun control advocates say no one needs an "assault weapon," or a clip that holds 90 rounds, and "reasonable restrictions" should be implemented immediately. Oh, nothing too radical of course, all very reasoned to keep us and the children all safe.
Meanwhile, gun advocates have seen what anti-tobacco zealots have accomplished in the last 25 years and are concerned with this same game plan being used against gun rights.
When the anti-tobacco mania started, all they wanted was just a little nonsmoking section "where we aren't bothered by smoke, that's all!" Completely rational and reasonable, besides it's to keep us and the children safe.
Step by step, incrementally, here we are today. Smoking is not permitted in any public building, in your car with your kids, in many public outside areas. Neighbors suing neighbors for smoking inside their own homes.
Good or bad? You decide. But given all of that, is it surprising that gun advocates have drawn a hard line in the sand? We must ask ourselves: In 30 years, will we have a right to own a gun, any gun?
Want to change gun rights? Then change the Constitution. Let's vote on the Second Amendment, and once we get that done we can work on all those other inconvenient Bill of Rights Amendments.
Al Sharpton, in answer to a question by the Daily Caller, said, "People don't have the right to unregulated rights."
So we come full circle, where the government must regulate our rights, to keep us and the children safe -- from ourselves.
But who keeps us and the children safe from an unregulated government?