Posted by
Rich on Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:48:57 AM
The Constitution states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune in their editorial, "
A gun right, with conditions"
makes the argument that cities should have the ability to "infringe"
upon our right to gun ownership and ability to defend ourselves and our
families.
Their argument is criminals have guns so we should not. They state,
"Too many guns end up in the hands of felons, the mentally ill and
violent criminals. Until that reality is reversed, U.S. deaths by
firearm are likely to remain too high."
We and the National Rifle Association agree with the editorial board.
Guns should not be in the hands of "felons, the mentally ill and
violent criminals". That is why we support Florida's 10, 20, Life laws.
We hope that all states pass such laws and that our courts enforce them.
The editorial board's opening comment, "Ah, the irony: Cities can ban
unfenced backyard swimming pools, front-yard parking and spitting on
the sidewalk. But a deadly handgun? That's constitutionally protected."
is misdirected at best and wrong at worst. Cities can do these things
but should they? We believe they should not.
We do not have the resources to enforce these bans nor are any of them
so heinous that they need enforcement. The more resources we use to
prevent spitting on the sidewalk or smoking on our beaches the fewer
resources are available to deal with the real issue - drug trafficking,
gangs and the gun related crimes that are linked to them.
The Herald-Tribune Editorial Board, "supports tough weapon regulation,
but laws won't do much for public safety unless enforcement is
strengthened." The Herald-Tribune wants to use precious law enforcement
resources to enforce regulations against honest, law abiding gun owning
citizens. They believe in "gun control", which means putting more
restrictions on ordinary citizens as did Washington, D.C. The
Washington, D.C. case was about a police officer who could posses and
carry his handgun at work but could not take it home with him to
protect his family. This fails the common sense test. Clearly common
sense and the clear words of the Constitution were not enough for four
Supreme Court justices.
The editorial board raises the number of deaths where guns were
involved in some way. We know that guns don't kill people, evil people
kill people. The weapon of choice for gangs, felons and criminals is
guns. Let's focus on these evil people not honest citizens.
We wonder what would have happened on the Virginia Tech campus if one
of the teachers, students, administrators or campus visitors had a gun
in their vehicle. What if someone used the gun in their car or truck to
defend themselves and those that died at the hands of a crazed killer?
Maybe the outcome would have been more favorable for the unarmed
innocents who where butchered.
Finally, we are struck by Senator Barack Obama's "change" of attitude
on the right to bear arms and gun control. However, we remain skeptical
given the fact he in 2004, voted against self-defense rights. "[Obama]
opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with
violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill
was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder,
was charged with a handgun violation." (Ryan Keith "Obama Record In
State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics," The
Associated Press, 1/17/07).
Here is a video on Senator Obama's "change" of view:
The right to bear arms is embodied in our Constitution as is the
freedom of speech and of religion. With these rights comes personal
responsibility. However, none shall be "infringed"