Dear Madam Editor,
I never dreamed someone would totally misunderstand what I thought was real plain English in my last editorial letter about gun control.
I’m accused of making an “irrational comparison,” when I honestly made NO comparisons whatever. What I introduced was simply a bit of history. The deluded female seems disappointed by people having any means to defend themselves, even with words. She called my comments “fearmongering run amok!” The poor woman thinks I advocated giving every American a gun!
If she ever read it, she would likely consider our Constitution to be the very foundation of “fearmongering.” It even pointed out that guns in citizen hands were to protect us. From whom? The Constitution protects us from government!
Two of the announced purposes in the preamble of that document were to “insure domestic tranquility” (for the people, not the government) and to “provide for the common defense.”of the people, from the government. In order to achieve that defense, the founders went on, (not in Article one, where they limited NOT the powers of the people, but of the government). It isn’t in Article two either, where they limited the power of the Executive, or in Article Three where they limit the power of the Judiciary.
The subject was important enough to put second in the amendments to the original document, right after their unanimous agreement to the First Amendment which says there can be no law abridging freedoms of citizens to assembly, speech, religion, or setting a wayward government straight. These freedoms are necessary to protect the people FROM the government, not the other way around, lady. Read it!
Now let me introduce any untutored folks (in addition to the woman of whom I spoke above) to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has guaranteed our freedoms throughout the administrations of forty-three previous presidents, all of whom unlike our modern model, respected this document and the nation it had protected so long:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the RIGHT of the people
to KEEP and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.”
Inability to either read or comprehend a rationally presented sentence, should not be an excuse to argue that the government “can not” take our firearms away! They have already emasculated the First Amendment, and I heard no outcry from the churches, the courts, or from the lady who graded my letter on a very Liberal curve. She brings into the argument, automatic weapons. I did not. That’s a purely leftist tactic. The government is after ALL guns. As an aside, having a large capacity magazine does not convert a firearm into an automatic! Only ignorance of guns does that for some people who do not appreciate liberty!
She displayed ignorance in believing the government “protects our freedoms,”in believing the police “protect us every day right here on the streets of America.” She also claimed I “criticize police work” I did not, but I do encourage people to understand policing in modern America. This woman ought to ask the police what their mission is.
All her comments come right out of the leftist playbook, so we know to whom she listens. We don’t need more laws.There are already laws requiring action on every one of the points she makes. Our government simply will not enforce them.
This woman who appears to actually be unable to think rationally, is welcome to her opinions, of course. Can YOU imagine a government that “makes those freedoms possible”? Government takes away freedoms! Thats why our founders tried to limit government interference with those freedoms, through the mechanism that our present government is ignoring every day – - our Constitution!
Our founders, thanks to their strong faith in their Creator, recognized the inherent weakness of governments, and tried to erect barriers to those weaknesses. Adherence to their system would ensure freedom for everybody–even the uninformed.
Colonel Michael Harley