Nothing gives me material to write rants about quite as consistently as the Letters to the Editor section of the Red Star. There is always some statist asshole writing about things he doesn’t actually understand. Take Roger Harrold or Edina, MN who wrote a rather idiotic little letter:
I’d like to make a case that the Second Amendment, important if not essential 220 years ago, makes no sense today. The right to bear arms at the time of the Revolutionary War was understandable.
Makes no sense today huh? I can point to a great case that would demonstrate otherwise, the events in Egypt. The people of Egypt are in revolt but still have no managed to give Mubarak the boot. Part of this problem comes from the fact that the people of Egypt are unarmed, if Mubarak wanted to stop the rebellion and had an army willing to follow his orders there would be nothing the protesters could do except become martyrs.
We have the second amendment because the founders of this country threw off the shackles of a tyrannical monarchy and didn’t much care to see such events happen again. The second amendment ultimately exists as a final check against government tyranny, should the government get out of hand we can remove them through force if they’re unwilling to surrender their power peacefully. This makes the second amendment just as relevant today as it did over 200 years ago.
Another case for the second amendment is self-defense. As a living entity I have a right to self-preservation. There is no way to justify to me that I shouldn’t be allowed to defend myself against an aggressor with any and all means at my disposal. The second amendment gives me the best tool for the job, a simple mechanical device that can propel a projectile at high speeds towards my attacker. By trying to take this simple device from me you are stating you wish me harm at the hands of another. You are telling me you want me to die at the hands of another. You are flat out saying you want me dead. You’ll have to excuse me if I take some offense to your statement of wishing harm upon me. The letter continues:
We had no standing army to speak of, no National Guard, no well-trained and equipped police force to defend us. For many, guns were needed for hunting as part of their livelihood.
If our country had just gained its independence in 2010, I don’t think we’d see the Second Amendment.
I believe if we gained independence in 2010 we would have the second amendment codified in our system of law. Why? Because we needed those guns to toss the British out on their asses last time and we would have needed them if we decided to do it now instead of 200 years ago. Also I laugh at his statement of a “well-trained police force.” Most people I know who are into firearms are much better shots than the average police office who only has to qualify with their firearms once a year. I’d trust a man who competes in any competitive shooting sport to have my back more than a police officer. Mr. Harrold continues on with his poorly thought out diatribe:
Dolan points out the differences between the United States and other developed countries in homicide rates involving guns. They are staggering.
Yes Finland and Switzerland doesn’t have nearly as many homicides involving firearms yet are pretty well armed nations. The problem with violent crime in the United States is multifaceted. Unlike many other countries we are not made up of a homogeneous culture of people with means. Switzerland and Finland are well armed but their populations are made mostly of people with a decent amount of money, a similar culture, and similar beliefs. The United States populations ranges in every aspect including wealth, race, religion, and personal principals. That coupled with the war on drugs (which caused a spike in violent crime that has subsided since) are far more plausible explanations for our higher homicide than the tool that isn’t exclusive to our country.
I have a Ph.D. in counseling psychology. Don’t ever think that we will be able to stop deranged minds from doing what happened in Tucson
Having a Ph.D. doesn’t mean jack shit. I’d bet money Mr. Harrold is also a Keynesian which has been demonstrated to be a failed system of economics. But had Mr. Harrold stopped his sentence there he’d have sounded slightly more intelligent. Of course he didn’t stop there:
without better gun control.
If gun control is the answer why has violent crime been dropping in the United States even though the rate of gun ownership and carry permits being issued have gone up? We have more people legally able to walk the streets carry firearms yet our violent crime is going down? The “assault weapon” ban sunset and yet our violent crime rate is going down. Florida, one of the first states to convert to a shall-issue carry permit state, noticed their violent crime rate drop when they switched the law over.
How can you say with a straight face that gun control works at preventing violent crime? It’s been proven time and time again that gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime yet when we loosen gun control laws violent crime either remains unchanged or goes down.
The problem is anti-gunners don’t have a leg to stand on. Their arguments are proven false time and again yet they’re so invested in being right they’re unwilling to look at the actual data.