Re: PG Editorial: "Disarm America? Here's how"
Sorry for poaching your observation on the 1st being protected by the 2nd. but it can't be said enough...
Someone else should target their moronic insistence that the right to bear arms is extremist. What? As extremist as an Orwellian door-to-door confiscation?
Also, make sure to post LTEs to the lppgh.org website.
Before accepting Dan Simpson's gun abolitionist suggesting outright, I ask readers consider these points before rallying to such short-sighted causes.
1. How ironic is it that Mr. Simpson's right to his own career is protected by the 2nd Amendment he wants to shred? All individual freedom to say "no-thanks" to government force (even in a democracy) is similar.
2. With over 200 million guns in the U.S. alone, its fantasy to believe a meaningful ratio of guns will be confiscated. Only the law abiding will comply (although this proposition would meet stiff resistance) and criminals with guns will have an easier time with crime.
3. Disarmed people are potential victims entirely dependent on others for their safety. Experience shows us the police mostly curtail V. Tech-like events long after they start. Often, they arrive only in time to count the dead and start an investigation, as it is with most any murder. Even an armed, uniformed guard could have been an easy, unsuspecting target for the well-planned Seung-Hui Cho.
4. Imagine the V. Tech outcome if, after Cho shot his first, he was greeted by 5 randomly drawn pistols operated by trained, decent individuals? What if Cho knew this was a possibility beforehand?
5. History shows that individuals can only kill a limited number before they are stopped. Governments have killed hundreds, thousands, even millions at a time.
The truth is we'll all be safer if more trustworthy people trained to safely operate and carry guns vs. some Orwellian confiscation.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Johannes Ernharth posted: