The right to self-defense is a natural right
Share with others:
I found your March 3 editorial on gun control ("Don't Give Up") extremely disappointing and packed with misleading information.
I'll start, as you did, with Adam Lanza. Lanza lived in a state with an "assault-style weapons" ban already in place. He tried to purchase a gun but was turned away. He murdered his own mother to obtain a weapon. This is easy access?
No "assault-style weapons" were used at Virginia Tech. The shooter used two handguns, one of them a .22 with a 10-round magazine. The Columbine tragedy occurred during the Clinton assault weapons ban. The Columbine shooters had one handgun, one carbine, two shotguns and 95 IEDs. Statistically, very few murders are committed with rifles of any type.
In paragraph four you attempt to conflate Second Amendment rights with hunting, but the Second Amendment was never about hunting. The right to self-defense is a natural right and that includes resisting would-be tyrants. While our current president is not a tyrant, there is no guarantee that a future president will not aspire to becoming a dictator.
Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" -- note "and the State." In that role, citizens should be entitled to firearms of the same types used by the military.
Gun control is not about guns, it's about control -- control of people. All too often, gun control in this country has been a tool of racial oppression. Department of Justice statistics show minorities suffer a higher violent crime victimization rate. New gun ownership restrictions would hurt minorities the most, and for that reason be discriminatory.
First Published March 11, 2013 12:00 am