The Jan. 8 letter, “Limits to bearing arms,” is only partially right about the Second Amendment.
It was, and is, about repelling foreign invaders. However, it was, and is, also intended to be a check against tyranny.
Americans think we’ve got government down pat because we’ve been around for more than 200 years and have been a world leader for most of that time.
In the history of the world, 230 years is a blink of an eye.
I don’t expect our government to ever turn on us, but in those cases where government has turned on the populace, do you suppose the populace expected it?
Does anyone think that the Jews, after Hitler disarmed civilians, expected what happened next?
Does anyone think the citizens of New Orleans, including the little old lady who was body slammed by a cop so that he could take her gun during Katrina, expected to be disarmed?
The letter is partially right in its observation that anyone needing more than three rounds to hit his or her target likely has a problem.
The question is: How many targets need to be hit?
Ask the employees of Hever’s Meat Market in Canton, who were recently confronted by two armed robbers with guns blazing, how many rounds are “enough.” Six? Ten? Twenty?
How about good citizens who, in the wake of natural disasters, have been confronted by multiple thugs up to no good? How about the citizens of South Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots?
By the way, when the adrenalin is flowing and you’re in fear for your life, are you going to hit your target with every shot? Is one hit enough? The Canton robbers were hit multiple times and were still functioning.
Detachable-magazine, semi-automatic firearms have been available to the American public for over 100 years. It is only in the past 27 years or so that we’ve had this problem.
That tells me it isn’t the guns that are causing the problem.
Vice President Joe Biden and others talk about saving “just one life.” Take away their bodyguards and put them into the middle of any of the real-life situations above and let’s see which life they become concerned about saving.
Wait for the facts
Why is it that so many are often so quick in passing judgment on our police officers, who serve daily in harm’s way to keep us safe?
When an incident with a police officer arises, wouldn’t it be better, fairer and kinder to wait until an official investigation yields all the facts before rushing to judgment?
And wouldn’t the same apply before posturing to file a civil suit?
Color of failed priorities
I finally figured out why red is the official color of the Republican Party.
It represents the blood on the hands of those who let the assault weapons ban expire in 2004 and so completely cower to the National Rifle Association that we now have to spend scarce educational funds turning our schools into maximum-security establishments instead of hiring much-needed teachers.