Don't limit our freedom

  • Follow Letters

The horrific events that transpired in Newtown, Conn., never will be forgotten. As a people, we have never feared for the safety of our children like we do today. If you pay attention to the news, crazed gunmen seem to be in stories every other week. In cities such as Chicago, New York and Detroit, gun violence is out of control.

But limiting our freedom is not the answer to this problem.

Many on the left believe that banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines will solve the problem and prevent incidents such as Newtown from happening again.

This simply is not the case.

There is no way to turn back the will of the country. Our children already have been brought up in a world with violent movies and video games; our adult population already has been indoctrinated with the ideals of the Second Amendment; and, most importantly, the real threats to America – gangsters, murderers and drug dealers – already are armed and ready to use force.

You cannot forbid Americans from owning guns (assault rifles included) even if they are unnecessary in civil society. Why? Because society is anything but civil. Democratic life is one of free will, and unless you change the moral landscape of the country, you cannot change this dynamic.

Our lawmakers have not realized that you cannot fix social ills with new laws.

We live in a dangerous world. That is a fact, and no law is going to change that. Government cannot control free will, and attempting to do so by limiting liberties – i.e., our ability to obtain guns – is pointless.

If you want to prevent these acts from happening, you have to start with our educational system, which has failed us. Government cannot change free will, but they can create citizens who are educated in morals and values – something that is forgotten about in our haste to create trainable, money-making professionals.

Tom Mudrak

Evans

Comments (12)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
carcraft
20811
Points
carcraft 12/27/12 - 06:23 am
4
2

Maybe it would be nice to see

Maybe it would be nice to see the Obama administration assume responsibility for its own violations of the law in Fast and Furious instead of having The Attorney General of the United States of America prevaricate time and again in congress and then claim executive privilege to hide these awful acts. Remember over 300 people were slaughtered in Mexico by the weapons drug dealers and gangs obtained because of the Obama administrations irresponsibility!

myfather15
42224
Points
myfather15 12/27/12 - 07:59 am
6
1

Have you heard about the

Have you heard about the recent shooting of the firefighters in Webster, NY? As a Deputy Sheriff, I realize I could be next and have great sympathy for these victims. But this shooting proves just how ridiculous the radical leftists ideas are. The crazed shooter who shot those firefighters had already been convicted of killing a person in the 80's. So he was already a convicted felon and it was an additional felony for him to possess a firearm. Yet, somehow he still possessed an AR-15 "Assault Rifle" as used at Sandy Hook School. How is this possible when it's illegal for him to possess ANY firearm? When will the left understand that criminals will NOT obey our laws, including new gun regulations. Drugs are illegal and are bought on streets in EVERY day in EVERY community. Guns will be the same if you ban citizens from possessing them. Criminals will still obtain them through the black market (i.e. streets). Bottom line is, if you limit our freedoms, the only people you will be limiting are those who willfully obey the laws. Those are the ones who wouldn't commit such an act of violence. Are those the people we want to remove freedom from?

myfather15
42224
Points
myfather15 12/27/12 - 08:24 am
7
1

This is really long, but might be worth a read........

This gun control issue isn't a gun control debate, it's a Constitutional Rights debate. The question is, should the federal government be able to restrict those rights, for a false feeling of being "More safe." Because thats the only thing it would do, is give a false feeling for some that we are doing "something" to make people a little more safe. The fact is, we wouldn't be any more safe, but might just be less safe.

After Wayne Lapierre made his statement the other day, he was attacked viciously by the left. Mr. Lapierre stated we need at least one armed police officer in EVERY school in America. Now, I disagree with this simply because ONE wouldn't do it. One officer would probably just be the first victim, if that officer didn't know the shooter was coming, which is impossible unless you can read minds. Then the shooter would shoot the officer first, then be free to continue his rampage. It would take several to properly protect the schools and this would be extremely expensive for a Country already 16 trillion in debt.

Now, many leftist are saying having an armed police officer in schools would result in an O.K. Coral type shootout, occurring in our schools. They say this is NOT what we need and would only endanger more children. Would endanger more children in schools, really? Is there anyone who uses common sense, who believes this rhetoric? Well, let’s take that comparison and look at it a little more in depth. Keep in mind while we are thinking about this, we are discussing an ACTIVE SHOOTER, not a hostage situation!!

Their comparison is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst. Having ZERO armed police officers in the school would be like the O.K. Coral having occurred but with Wyatt Earp, his brothers and Doc Holliday having NO GUNS. It would have been a ONE SIDED massacre, period!! I know, people without logic would say if Earp and his side wouldn’t have had firearms, the shootout might not have happened in the first place. That’s assuming a lot, seeing as bad people have always existed and those children in Sandy Hook didn’t have firearms.

Police train completely different for ACTIVE SHOOTERS than they do for hostage situations. So keep in mind, we are NOT talking about a hostage situation, we are talking about an ACTIVE SHOOTER already in the school. So, you’ve already got the O.K. Coral shootout, with bullets flying all over the place, striking innocent victims. The only difference is, we who believe in armed citizens, would like for some of those bullets to be traveling towards the lunatic shooting at children. If the left has their way, the children and teachers will continue to be the only ones hiding from bullets. So, you already have the SHOOTOUT the left wants to avoid, but it’s just a one sided massacre. So, would you rather have a shootout at the O.K. Coral or a one sided massacre with a crazed shooter methodically shooting innocent children and unarmed, unprotected adults? Seems the answer would be simple. The crazed shooters pick defenseless targets such as schools, movie theatres, malls, etc. The shooters don’t want to confront ARMED and trained law enforcement or private citizens. So yes, I believe if we had 3 armed law enforcement officers in each school, it would absolutely PREVENT most shootings at schools. The shooter would probably just choose a different, easier and more defenseless target. But, I’m not sure this is practical because of expense.

Also, for example; let’s say we already have an ACTIVE SHOOTER, inside a school assassinating children and teachers. Let’s say this lunatic decides NOT to shoot himself as the police arrive. The police storm in and there you have it, the shootout at the O.K. Coral. The only difference is, that before this O.K. Coral shootout, the lunatic got to shoot numerous unarmed victims, THEN has a shootout with police. So the shootout is going to happen regardless, the only question is WHEN and if it happens before he can methodically shoot innocent victims. Does this make sense to anyone?

I realize the leftist would say “If we don’t have guns in Citizens hands, we don’t have to worry about any of this.” I would agree with you, but your dream of living without firearms is IMPOSSIBLE!! It can’t happen when there are approximately 300 million guns in the USA. It would be like the environmentalists saying we need to get rid of all vehicles because we are going to destroy the world. IT WON’T HAPPEN. Until we understand that FIREARMS were invented and we will have to live with them the rest of our existence, we are living in a dream world. We must accept this and work towards something that is actually obtainable. Living in a world where private citizens AREN’T armed, isn’t just unrealistic, it’s impossible.

myfather15
42224
Points
myfather15 12/27/12 - 08:20 am
5
1

More dangerous?

I was actually debating this with a friend of mine the other day. He is in favor of limiting people owning "Assault rifles" and doesn't think arming officers or teachers in school will help anything. He actually agrees that it would endanger more lives. Endanger more lives huh?

His statement was "If you have bullets flying both ways, people standing behind or around the crazed shooter could get hit by the officer or teachers bullets."

Pay attention to what was said there; "People standing behind or around the crazed shooter COULD get hit by the officers or teachers bullets."

Now, I could be very wrong about this but my opinion is, if a crazed shooter enters a school, mall, etc; The innocent persons in the building SHOULD be fleeing from the presence of the shooter. Why? Because he is an ACTIVE SHOOTER and is actively killing people. I don't think I would be standing beside him, awaiting my turn to take a bullet. Also, if there are people standing behind him, in view of the teacher who also see HIM. Don't you think the shooter can see those people behind him as well. Aren't their lives already in danger is they are standing in view of the shooter?

So, since common sense tells us that innocent occupants of the building SHOULD be FLEEING AWAY from the shooter. A teacher confronting the shooter, could send some bullets his way, with relative safety. Now, I realize many teachers wouldn't be willing to possess a firearm to protect. But they should accept willing volunteers from the teachers and staff. Then Professionally TRAIN these persons in using firearms, just as we train police and military. If we could get 7 or 8 people inside the school that are willing to go through the training, it could reduce casualties. The firearms would be locked in a VERY EXPENSIVE lock box, inside the teachers desk. With only the teacher having key. These are teachers of our children, are they not responsible enough to secure a key? Then, worst case scenario, the teacher hears a Pop, Pop, Pop and many more, coming from somewhere in the school. The teachers tells the children to hide in a corner and then retrieves their weapon and confronts the shooter. Then HE is dodging bullets and its not so easy for him to methodically kill children. It's very stressless to walk around shooting victims you KNOW can't shoot back. Not so easy when you have to dodge bullets flying at you. Too much common sense???

ymnbde
7578
Points
ymnbde 12/27/12 - 09:49 am
4
1

good letter

hopefully will generate an actual discussion, and not just immature typescreaming... the writer should be given more space in the paper.

soldout
1280
Points
soldout 12/27/12 - 10:24 am
3
4

evolution is source of problem

the teaching of the religion of evolution is a large cause of the death mindset. Mass killers like Hitler were believers in evolution. Abortion is easy for those who believe in evolution. Sowing and reaping is a powerful force and it is interesting that the source of the evolution teaching is also reaping more of the mass shootings than other areas. The Bible says the fool has said there is no God and how foolish are we when we place a sign around a school and say it is a gun free zone. That is an open invitation to those who plan these things. We also re-enforce this Godless mindset by using terms like "happy holidays" instead of Christmas. Do you think Martin Luther King's name won't be mentioned on his birthday so we won't offend the KKK? How foolish is that but we do the same thing at Christmas. The Bible says the curse without a cause does not come but as a country we refuse to discuss causes but blame guns. The biggest school killings in this country was done by dynamite in the 20s.

pearlthesquirrel
786
Points
pearlthesquirrel 12/27/12 - 10:39 am
1
1

Talk about being Sold out...

Unpublished

Your comments at 9:24 a.m. are ridiculous, insipid, and most of all - asinine.

Jane18
12331
Points
Jane18 12/27/12 - 11:47 am
2
3

myfather15's Friend

You know there are some folks with no common sense...they just cannot wrap their brains around the "right" thing to do........... soldout, good comment!

Bizkit
22146
Points
Bizkit 12/27/12 - 12:04 pm
4
1

Alcohol can be a healthy

Alcohol can be a healthy addition to any diet in modest quantities but many abuse it and it causes more deaths than guns and often involved in violence too. The solution isn't banning alcohol but treating alcoholism. Progressives always jump on shallow peripherals rather than address the root of the problem (same with social security, etc). Without addressing the "root" issue you will never solve the problem. Should all suffer a loss of freedom because of the few abusers. Prohibition didn't work and banning any guns will have the same outcome. Course criminals will love the new black market and income. Have you noticed how many pellet guns look like AR rifles-wait till some kid gets blown away totin' a pellet gun. Making villains outta AR rifles could have unseen consequences.

grouse
1594
Points
grouse 12/27/12 - 01:39 pm
0
0

The writer is demonstratively

Unpublished

The writer is demonstratively wrong. Other countries have passed laws limiting certain types of weapons and the rate of crime by these weapons have gone down. The Constitution does not give unfettered rights to own any weapon; no one has a tank parked in his driveway. The Constitution also provides for a "well-regulated militia" as part of the right to bear arms. Just as consequences for yelling, "fire" in a crowded theatre doesn't curtail freedom of speech, limits on the type of firepower doesn't curtail second amendment rights.

YeCats
8967
Points
YeCats 12/27/12 - 02:10 pm
0
4

Good letter,

till the final paragraph. Government school systems creating citizens with morals and values is just more nanny state.

allhans
21987
Points
allhans 12/27/12 - 03:31 pm
1
1

Dehumanization...devaluing

Dehumanization...devaluing life...it begins with the unborn and goes on and on...
Until we, as a country, realize just how precious a human life is, then
tragedies such as that in Newtown Ct will continue.

David Parker
7919
Points
David Parker 12/27/12 - 04:24 pm
4
1

Most Viewed in 2012 on

Most Viewed in 2012 on ACH

Couple arrested for theater fornication
Store owner kills suspected burglar
Lab tech found drunk, partially clothed
1 dead; suspect in custody in hospital shooting
Boy stages own protest of Westboro Baptist protesters
Lakeside homecoming queen ready for spotlight
Woman says man sucked her toe at Walmart
William S. Morris III resigns from GHSU board over Regents name
6 victims in downtown Augusta shooting
5 teens arrested in rape, robbery, kidnapping of Harrisburg woman

Appears the mob prefers sex, drugs, and violence.

This is a no-brainer. If you are a "banner", then you are using the event in Newtown to parlay your agenda into legislation, and for that, you should be ashamed.

TK3
562
Points
TK3 12/27/12 - 10:55 pm
0
1

When seconds count, police only minutes away.

Allowing teachers their Second Amendment RIGHT to carry (concealed) for self defense and to help protect their charges, if need be, is the best way to go because any would-be attacker would figure some (unknown) willing teacher is likely armed and there may well be resistance so no more "easy" targets in the "Gun Free Killing Zone".

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

Back to Top

Loading...