Public's desire to bear arms in America must be changed
I find Charley Reese to be entertaining and thought-provoking. However, I must adversely comment on the closing paragraph of his column of Nov. 7 ("Finally, a law that levels playing field for American gun manufacturers").
While I am a fervent advocate of gun control, I approve of the new law which shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits brought against them because of those who misuse their products.
Reese points out that no one has sued Ford for any nefarious after-sale use of its cars and this seems to be an apt, logical analogy. My differences with him are in his final sentence: "Even if you don't wish to own a firearm, you should join the National Rifle Association and defend the Second Amendment against those who want the government to have a monopoly on force."
Do I want the government to have a monopoly on force? You betcha! Those we elect and appoint to protect us need to hold all the cards. The time at which officialdom might abuse such a monopoly is miniscule when compared to the daily slaughter of Americans by Americans throughout the land.
I am a relatively new American, having migrated from Britain in 1965, and becoming an ardent American citizen in 1976. I realize that the desire to bear arms is a matter going back to the founding of the nation and is deep in the soul of most Americans in a way which I cannot feel or understand.
This right will not be changed easily or overnight. But it must change in the fullness of time. The presence of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the public and the general ease with which current gun laws are circumvented is counter productive to a people seeking public safety and mutual respect.
John Paul
Jackson
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051123/OPINION/511230304/1009
I find Charley Reese to be entertaining and thought-provoking. However, I must adversely comment on the closing paragraph of his column of Nov. 7 ("Finally, a law that levels playing field for American gun manufacturers").
While I am a fervent advocate of gun control, I approve of the new law which shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits brought against them because of those who misuse their products.
Reese points out that no one has sued Ford for any nefarious after-sale use of its cars and this seems to be an apt, logical analogy. My differences with him are in his final sentence: "Even if you don't wish to own a firearm, you should join the National Rifle Association and defend the Second Amendment against those who want the government to have a monopoly on force."
Do I want the government to have a monopoly on force? You betcha! Those we elect and appoint to protect us need to hold all the cards. The time at which officialdom might abuse such a monopoly is miniscule when compared to the daily slaughter of Americans by Americans throughout the land.
I am a relatively new American, having migrated from Britain in 1965, and becoming an ardent American citizen in 1976. I realize that the desire to bear arms is a matter going back to the founding of the nation and is deep in the soul of most Americans in a way which I cannot feel or understand.
This right will not be changed easily or overnight. But it must change in the fullness of time. The presence of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the public and the general ease with which current gun laws are circumvented is counter productive to a people seeking public safety and mutual respect.
John Paul
Jackson
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051123/OPINION/511230304/1009