Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

To oppose a modern-day power, hunting rifles will not be enough

To The Daily Sun,

The recent debates regarding gun control, in and out of the U.S. Congress, fail to address a critical question, which is: why do we have the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and specifically why do we have the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution?

The answer to this question is one that we in today's America, either intentionally or unintentionally, rarely discuss due to the conclusions that both sides in this issue would have to reach. These are conclusions that I reached as a public school student in the 1960s. Conclusions, by the way, that today's public school students cannot make because the educational system has failed us, intentionally or unintentionally. Both sides in this debate, the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds, are failing to address the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Gun supporters stress the right of citizens to protect one's home and family, and maintain one's hunting rights. Gun control advocates respond and ask: why do we then need assault-style weapons with 30 round magazines in order to protect our home or be able to go hunting? Without knowing why we really have the Second Amendment in our Constitution, it may be difficult to answer such a question.

The reason that our founding fathers included the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights was to give the citizens of this nation the ability to resist any tyrannical power which may want to deprive the people of their freedom, and thus "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." All other Bill of Rights would become meaningless if we were to be governed by a tyrannical power.

The right to keep and bear arms to protect oneself and one's family, and be able to hunt, were a given during the writing of our founding documents. They were never in question and would never have required a separate amendment to the Bill of Rights. But the right of the people in our newly formed republic to keep and bear arms to defend our nation against potential foreign or domestic powers had to be guaranteed. We have to remember that the battle of Lexington-Concord, which started our Revolutionary War, was precipitated by the British efforts to confiscate weapons and powder from colonials. With that as a background, the Founding Fathers later drafted the Second Amendment in order to prevent any future power from attempting to confiscate weapons and ammunition from the people. It follows then that the people must be able to keep and bear arms with which they would be capable of resisting and opposing a foreign or domestic power which threatens their rights and freedoms.

In colonial days those weapons were a musket and flintlock pistol. In later years they would have been a lever-action rifle and revolver. Today those individual weapons are the so-called "assault rifle" (w/30 round magazine capacity) and the automatic pistol. You cannot effectively oppose a modern day military force with a shotgun, musket or flintlock pistol.

Gun control advocates often question the ability of any foreign power to attack our nation. They claim that we have the strongest military in the world and that no foreign power would dare to attack us. Yet today's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and our country's military establishment at the Pentagon have concluded that we do have existential threats to our nation and they are, in order of priority; Russia, North Korea, China and ISIS. These are countries or entities that have the capability and/or potential to destroy our nation and our way of life, and to one degree or another they all may have the desire and will to do so. If any of the above existential threats were to follow through, it would be the duty of every able-bodied citizen to aid in the defense of our nation. In today's world that would not be, nor can it be, with muskets, bolt action rifles, shot guns or revolvers.

To oppose a modern day power, when our existential survival is at stake, with hunting rifles and revolvers is not what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Second Amendment. Today we can be attacked within our borders by a force of up to 15,000-30,000 strong within 48 to 72 hours and many more to follow within one week. The immediate responders to such an attack would probably be local law enforcement, an armed citizenry, a relatively small active duty force and local National Guard forces, in that order. In such a scenario the advantage and initiative is always with the attacking forces but an armed citizenry would be invaluable and very decisive to the final outcome.

I believe, neither side in the current debate wants to talk about the real purpose of the Second Amendment because the logical conclusions that would have to be reached do not fit the current narratives of either side. Hard truths and reality are difficult concepts to deal with especially when skirting or avoiding these discussions is so much easier. We can do what is right by supporting the Second Amendment and that which it is intended to do while also protecting our citizens from the criminals, felons, terrorists and the unstable among us who may want to use such weapons.

It should not be a choice of one or the other. Leaders in our country must have the willpower to do both, support the Second Amendment as it was intended by the Founding Fathers and protect our people by with severe punishments for any felonious criminal acts committed with any type of weapon. It is not that difficult.

Bo J. Rudzinskyj

Sanbornton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 141

Wouldn't we all like our views to be the dominate ones in America?

To The Daily Sun,

I don't know E. Scott Cracraft, except by his columns and letters in the Daily Sun, but I get the impression that he has a low opinion of evangelical Christians and those who hold conservative (sometimes called traditional) values. He doesn't seem to be very tolerant of those of us who hold those views, and someone needs to correct statements that are misleading, thus this letter.

The implication that many evangelical Christians are calling for the execution of gay people and those women who have abortions is absurd. There may be a very few (not even a fringe) who feel that way, but I know none who have even mentioned such a thing. I have heard no preacher in our country calling for the death penalty for gays. Anyone who does is not representative of the vast majority of conservative, evangelical Christians.

Mr. Cracraft warns us about something called "Christian dominionism." As one who has been involved in Christian evangelical fellowship most of my years, to date I do not recall ever having been involved in a discussion of Christian dominionism. I have discussed the dominion of God and the lordship of Jesus Christ. I am acquainted with the term "apologetics" which involves defending the Christian faith, and not apologizing for it.

To Mr. Cracraft and those who share his concern about Christian beliefs and practice I ask: Would you like your worldview to be the dominate one in America? I expect you would and would be puzzled if you did not. Do you believe Muslims would like their beliefs to be the dominate one not only of Iran, but also of the United States? I expect they do.

Mr. Cracraft's references are internet sites. My guess and research leads me to believe that the term Christian dominionism is one used more by the those that like to label some people with unpopular viewpoints than it is by Christians.

However, followers of Jesus Christ realize that they are going to be misunderstood and misrepresented and belittled for their beliefs. That is a small thing in light of the fact that they have experienced the love and power of God in their lives, and purpose to live their lives by the commandments of Jesus to love God with all their being and to love their neighbor as themselves. That love extends to the unborn baby that is killed in the womb, and, believe it or not, to the mother who chooses to end her baby's life.

One internet site reveals three beliefs of those it labels Christian dominionists. The first is that they believe that the U.S.A. should be a Christian nation. There are people who with reason believe that a nation governed by Christian values makes for a better nation; not a perfect one, because Christians aren't perfect, but a better one. Mr. Cracraft seems to believe that a nation without Christians (at least evangelical Christians) would be better.

The second supposed trait of a Christian dominionist is said to be that they do not respect the equality of other religions. The idea that all religions are equal defies logic. Some Christians don't like to use the word religion in describing their faith because they feel it is misleading. But how can all beliefs be equal when they contradict each other? Do those in political parties think that the opposing party is equal in value? The rhetoric I hear doesn't indicate that. Should we respect the equality of all restaurants? Does it make me a bad person if I choose one over the other?

The third charge against the so-called dominionists is that they believe that the Ten Commandments should be the foundation of American law. The fact is that they have been just that in practice until recent decades even though it may not be stated in the documents. The commandments are good and right and sensible and the keeping of them makes for a better society.

Does the evangelical, conservative (in some ways, liberal) Christian want to promote the good news of Jesus Christ? Would he like to see others accept all that Jesus offers them? Of course! But theirs is not a mission of hate, nor of imposing their beliefs on others against their will, nor of denying freedom of religion, nor of advocating execution of people whose conduct they don't like, nor of denying people a vote. Who, really, are the ones who have been trying to impose their values on us? Whose agenda is the extreme one? Who has been questioning the intelligence of Christians? Who are the intolerant?

Mr. Cracraft may be a very nice man. I choose to think that he is, but I also think he is barking up the wrong tree.

Bob Smith

New Hampton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 272