A+ A A-

Let's not run out of ammunition before the law breakers do

To the editor,
I know Ms. Loesch wants Don Ewing to respond to her latest and most urgent request in her recent letter, but I thought I would try and assist her in her search for rationality. Since it is rarely found in the leftist lunasphere, I thought that like Mighty Mouse, I'd try to come and save her day.
As far as I know, folks aren't allowed to "arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction". North Korea has em and Iran wants them desperately. So, other than some far right wing extremists, as identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who may be armed with a few nuclear powered rocket launchers, our beloved government doesn't allow us to keep WMD type arsenals. That would be much to the chagrin of unrepentant mad bomber, Bill Ayers and his "perps turned profs" buddies, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin. Those would be just two of the radical 60s, retro "Occupy Wall Street" wack jobs who are teaching our children their anti-capitalist/Christian, secular humanism/moral relativism, collectivist crap. Not content just to seduce men into destructive activities, these femme fatales now are intent on leading our youth into destructive, warped socialist ideologies, but I digress.
Why would folks need "high power weaponry", you ask. Ah, would that you meant that question rhetorically. However, I know you mean that sincerely, which succinctly encapsulates the bizarre world of "modern day liberals" (even if you aren't one). I think Thomas Sowell summed it up nicely in one of his recent columns. Limiting the amount of "firepower" one is allowed to have will only "ensure that the law abiding citizen runs out of ammo before the criminal does". I would suggest Ms. Loesch, that you might want to change your position since you are siding with the likes of Diane Feinstein, N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama and "just shoot your shotgun through the door" Joe Biden. Are you seriously okay with having bureaucrats decide how many rounds one is allowed to have in a magazine? If multiple invaders to one's house enter encumbered with "high powered weaponry", is it fair or rational or safe for the homeowner to be restrained by a certain limited amount of rounds?
So you see, the answer is really just so darn simple and sensible. Let's ensure that law abiding citizens have enough firepower so that they do not run out of ammunition before the law breaking intruders do. President Obama's desire for more unenforceable and ineffective gun control laws has nothing to do with saving the lives of children. As a liberal, socialist, Marxist, egomaniacal central planner or whatever he has evolved to become, he detests the fact that our Constitution is a document of limiting powers. Rather by fiat, executive order or plain old Chicago thuggery, he wants to diminish a vital building block of our secure liberty, the 2nd amendment. How else to ply this constitutional republic into statist putty in order to prepare it for the "fundamental transformation" into an "Agenda 21" entity or some "sustainable" facsimile thereof. You know, like Karl Marx's goal of the "abolition of all private property". Just one of the many Marxist ideals that so tickled our dear leader's fancy during his formative years.
Bernadette, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the media that you likely use to gain knowledge and perspective has deceived you. They no longer work as objective watch dogs in order to keep citizens informed of government shenanigans. Here is a timely example for you to savor. A recent Justice Dept. study has revealed the following statistics: firearm related homicides in the U.S. have declined annually by 39 percent from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. This is corroborated by annual FBI statistics. And this has occurred while gun ownership and concealed carry has increased precipitously. Sadly, your favorite media site has most likely hid this information from you.
So, to summarize, citizens need "high power weaponry" to maintain an advantage over criminals who would seek their untimely demise. Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment must be kept intact to keep a looming, tyrannical government from knocking down the wall of liberty built by our founding fathers. At least that is my answer to your exasperated request for an answer. I hope I have been of some assistance in bringing you clarity or at least some food for thought with regard to this issue.
Russ Wiles
Tilton
 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN