Tell other side of gun issue

  • Follow Letters

It is a pity that my hometown newspaper elects to publish letters in this column of late that represent only one side of this now sensitive issue: those singularly opposed to any kind of added or strengthened regulations or controls. In direct contrast to a goodly number of those I have read here, increased and far stronger regulations that control legal access and ownership of weapons does reduce significantly the number of deaths by gunfire, as well as gun-related injury, in those other members of the civilized Western world – and consistently so. We have but to familiarize ourselves with the pertinent statistics. They are easily available.

The oft-quoted Second Amendment rights beg another comment. I asked my 9-year-old great-grandson to read that misquoted amendment aloud, after posing the following question: Does this amendment guarantee to private citizens the right to freely purchase and own firearms? His answer, as is my own: It most certainly does not. That “well armed Militia” to which it refers has not a thing to do with my entering my favorite gun shop – and I am a proud, and multiple, gun owner– and purchasing a good condition, used AK-47. New or used, for that matter. With or without a 30-round magazine.

George V. Williams

Hudson, Fla.

Comments (66) 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
27138
Points
carcraft 01/18/13 - 06:44 am
5
4
Yes MyFather15. Every stat I

Yes MyFather15. Every stat I have read says that the more guns don't lead to more shootings. Great editorial in the "Wall Street Journal"! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732346860457824580384579606... Now Mr. Williams please present your statistics!

carcraft
27138
Points
carcraft 01/18/13 - 06:56 am
7
4
True military assault weapons

True military assault weapons have a select fire. You can use a military weapon as fully automatic, which is highly ineffective except as suppressive fire, three round burst, or semi-automatic. Civilians can own fully automatic weapons, but you need a special ATF license. No fully automatic weapon has been used in a mass murder despite the fact that civilians own them! More people are killed with hands and feet than with long rifles to include assault weapons. The ignorance of the "journo-lists" that write about guns is astounding. Why don't they actually research what they write about instead of appearing so ignorant? Now please show me where President Obama has the constitutional authority to ban anything unless it is tied to existing legislation? Last I checked there were no existing laws banning “assault weapons”. We do have a separation of powers in America, Obama being a constitutional law professor should realize that!

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 01/18/13 - 07:08 am
7
5
Here it is!!`

"A well regulated Militia, being NECESSARY to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ok, let me try to explain this as simple as I can so that people will comprehend this with clear understanding. The most important word in here is probably the one I placed in bold; NECESSARY. It says NECESSARY for the security of a FREE STATE. So, the Founding Fathers, who actually EXPERIENCED a tyrannical government said it was NECESSARY for the citizens to be well armed.

Leading up the the Revolutionary War, the Brittish were building massive forces, including Naval and ground troops, here in the states. These troops were going around seizing the peoples firearms. Disarming them because the British knew a conflict was approaching. So, the Founding Fathers were about to go to war with THEIR OWN government, which was Britain at that time. Britain was trying to disarm the citizens in the lead up to the war.

So, AFTER we win the war and the Founding Fathers form a Constitution, giving citizens the rights to be well armed, SOME would think this doesn't apply this way? When THEY (Founding Fathers) said it was NECESSARY for the security of a FREE STATE? And you don't think it's necessary? Why is your wisdom so superior to that of the Founding Fathers who experienced tyrannical government, first hand?

If you would take the time to read Patrick Henry's Call to Arms, from 1775 it would help you to understand why we have the right to be well armed with the HIGHEST of fire power, and also why we've never been invadd on this mainland. Henry wrote that the Brittish think we are weak sir, but when we will be stronger, next week or next year? Or when we are TOTALLY DISARMED? Then he goes on to say 3 millions of men ARMED,in such a country as we possess, we are INVINCIBLE to any enemy which can be brought against us. Do you get that? If not, let me repeat it, INVINCIBLE!!! Keep in mind, the enemy we were fighting at THIS time was our own government, but it was also meant for foreign governments.

Yamamoto (Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Navy During WWII) stated: "You can not invade America's mainland, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass." He wasn't referring to the military, they are strong but wouldn't equal a gun behind every blade of grass. He was referring to the citizens of America being well armed!! Can you say INVINCIBLE??

Patrick Henry was referring to 3 million armed men being invincible and he was RIGHT, we won and defeated the most powerful government in existence at that time! Now we have 180-200 million ARMED citizens! Can you say, INVINCIBLE?? Hey leftists, THIS is the reason citizens being armed is "NECESSARY" according to the Founding Fathers!! It isn't for hunting, or sport shooting, or pleasure. It's because the Citizens being ARMED, makes this Country the most invincible Country EVER known to mankind!! Yamamoto knew this, but does the LEFT? YOU BET THEY DO, and it eats them alive. They will use any propaganda to continue their quest for the citizens firearms. They KNOW this will make this Country weaker, it's just common sense. But that is exactly their goal, its the ONLY thing which makes sense when talking of banning semi-automatic firearms.

So they want to ban something the Founding Fathers said was NECESSARY. Ask yourself again, WHY? The answer is NOT the safety of the children. A crazed killer will ALWAYS be able to kill in mass when given enough time to PLAN the event. Timothy McVeigh anyone?? He didn't possess an AR-15. But they will USE and exploit the children to push their agenda, just as the President did. Using the uninformed citizens COMPASSION for children. Ask yourself this question; what kind of barbaric monster wouldn't want to pass regulation that would make innocent children safer? So, if you stand against new regulation or eventually complete bans, you're a disgusting monster with ZERO compassion for little children!! That is exactly how they will brand you and many in the left wing media are already doing so. The uninformed people of this Country will buy this, hook line and sinker. Then We The People will lose!! Think about it!!

Read Patrick Henry's Call to Arms below, paying special attention to the 2nd to last paragraph. WOW, is all I can say!!

http://www.christiangallery.com/callarms.html

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 01/18/13 - 07:35 am
6
4
The Brittish government knew

The Brittish government knew insurrection was coming and were trying to disarm the citizens. Currently, the hard left of this Country want to take over and run this Country as they see fit. Why? Refer back to my post about George Bernard Shaw yesterday. They believe we are inferior human beings and they MUST take over because they are superior intellect than us. We are too stupid to know whats best for us, bottom line.

These leftists are brilliant and have been for a very long time. This has been building up since the beginning. They've been subtly building this for a very long time. They ABSOLUTEY REALIZE this is going to cause a insurrection, there is no doubt in their minds. Eventually, when they continue their progress towards a more leftist, total control goal, it will lead to insurrection and they KNOW IT. So what must they do? They must do the same thing the Brittish, Ottoman Empire, Mao's China and Hitler's Germany did; they must disarm the citizens or their plan will NEVER work. Why? Did you not understand the word INVINCIBLE in my second post?

But their are FAR to many American's sleeping safely in their homes nightly. Paying no attention because they believe "It could never happen here in America." But oh yes it can, and mainly because of this very attitude. Freedom has no where else to flee!! When this Country was founded, we didn't have satelittes in space to tell us there wasn't any new lands to flee too. Today, we know EXACTLY that there is no more fleeing. There is no new promised land for freedom to flee. As Reagan said it so well "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

So, if this is indeed the last stand on earth, and we are losing (which we are); we will need a savior, right? Well, I promise you friends, WE HAVE ONE!! He shall save us in more ways than you can possibly comprehend!! Now, this doesn't mean we should just lay down and wait for it. We STAND, having done all to STAND!! Just keep in mind as we are losing, We still have the Savior!!

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 01/18/13 - 08:47 am
6
5
Myfather15's Knowledge

Once again, I am impressed. Always, always, continue to put the truth out here for the people. Maybe there will be some to "get it", hey, maybe Mr. Williams and his grandson will be your first two! The quote by Yamamoto is one I use often to remind people how and why we are to stay armed....................You are correct, we still have the promise of JESUS......

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/18/13 - 08:47 am
6
7
I wonder why the left thinks
Unpublished

I wonder why the left thinks it is unconstitutional to require an ID to exercise your Constitutional right to vote, but it is OK to require an ID, and even put further restrictions on your Constitutional right to bear arms. No where in the Constitution does it say "shall not be infringed....with the following exceptions:"

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 01/18/13 - 09:02 am
3
4
@Angela

There is something else that ISN'T protected in the Constitution. We are NOT protected from being OFFENDED. Nowhere in the Constitution does it protect an individual from feeling offended. So be BOLD in our words and continue to fight the good fight. If someone is offended, let them be; they will get over it eventually. You're doing well, keep it up!! If the truth offends someone, does it make it any less true? If the truth offends someone, maybe they SHOULD be offended!!

americafirst
966
Points
americafirst 01/18/13 - 09:04 am
5
6
All this debate over guns

All this debate over guns rights for so many years and all we had to do was to ask Mr. Williams great grandson. Debate over.

Jon Lester
2369
Points
Jon Lester 01/18/13 - 09:05 am
5
0
I think someone needs to go to the range.

AR's and AK's are not the most powerful weapons on the market, and some people (including quite a few women) actually prefer them because the recoil is easier on the shoulder.

nofanofobama
6856
Points
nofanofobama 01/18/13 - 09:13 am
6
4
in our constitution the left

in our constitution the left can find rights that are not stated..abortion for example..yet when the 2nd clearly states a right and then use the wording "shall not infringe" the left insists that there are limits expressed..our forefathers were brilliant in setting up our govt..even to have foresight that society may change by including a mechanism to amend and change the constitution..and this mechanism can be applied by the left or right for all the rights or restrictions that are not listed through a democratic and orderly process. ..the only problem is that the left dont trust the amendment process because they will have to honest by putting forth an amendment that can be read...and to most americans the true goal of the left is truly foreign to the average american way of life and thought...

dichotomy
34495
Points
dichotomy 01/18/13 - 10:31 am
4
4
"great-grandson to read that

"great-grandson to read that misquoted amendment aloud, after posing the following question: Does this amendment guarantee to private citizens the right to freely purchase and own firearms? His answer, as is my own: It most certainly does not."

Mr. Williams....Please teach your great-grandson the meaning of a COMMA.

"The comma is used in many contexts and languages, PRINCIPALLY FOR SEPARATING THINGS."

The version of the 2nd Amendment that was ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, only has one comma.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And the Supreme Court correctly interpreted that single comma as totally separating the need for a militia from the absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms.

crkgrdn
2287
Points
crkgrdn 01/18/13 - 10:36 am
1
1
So, why not apply the same test to the First Amendment?

Speech, press and assembly have wider meanings today from what they were in 1787.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/18/13 - 10:53 am
5
3
Commas can save lives!!!
Unpublished

Let's eat, Grandma.

Let's eat Grandma.

fedex227
11187
Points
fedex227 01/18/13 - 11:33 am
3
2
Why is it that any effort to 'regulate' ...
Unpublished

a constitutionally mandated 'well regulated' militia is deemed unconstitutional?

Little Lamb
47012
Points
Little Lamb 01/18/13 - 11:49 am
4
3
Militia

Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams’ great-grandson, and FedEx have all missed the point. The purpose of codifying the rights of "the people" (individually and collectively) to own and use firearms is so that those people can join together into militias when necessary to fight a despotic government (see a long-forgotten document called the Declaration of Independence).

We are not talking "National Guard" here (which are government-sanctioned and government-controlled militias). We are talking citizen militias fighting government forces. That's what the 2nd Amendment seeks to preserve.

fedex227
11187
Points
fedex227 01/18/13 - 12:24 pm
1
4
LL ...
Unpublished

Did you mean US. citizens fighting U.S. active duty military and National Guard forces? Just asking.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/18/13 - 12:30 pm
5
4
Fedex...because it also says
Unpublished

Fedex...because it also says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can regulate a militia without infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The left isn't making an effort to regulate the militia.....they are making an effort to infringe on my right to bear arms.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/18/13 - 12:31 pm
6
3
"Did you mean US. citizens
Unpublished

"Did you mean US. citizens fighting U.S. active duty military and National Guard forces? Just asking."

I say.....if necessary. But how long do you think the US military and Guard will obey unlawful orders to kill their families?

Darby
26996
Points
Darby 01/18/13 - 12:58 pm
6
2
"It is a pity that my hometown newspaper elects.....

to publish letters in this column of late that represent only one side of this now sensitive issue"

Well, you could try moving to NYC, Los Angles, Detroit, Chicago etc., but you would still have to contend with the same bias, only from the other side.

On the other hand, I'm sure we wouldn't be hearing complaints from you or your sweet little politically indoctrinated grandson.

BTW, if, as you say, this paper only publishes "one side" of the issue, why am I burdened with reading your patronizing, condescending point of view?

With apologies to the cast and crew of the classic TV show "Lost in Space",
"That does not compute."

Darby
26996
Points
Darby 01/18/13 - 12:51 pm
6
1
"Let's eat, Grandma.

Let's eat Grandma."

Not without a liberal application of tenderizer. That old broad is tough as nails....

fedex227
11187
Points
fedex227 01/18/13 - 01:20 pm
2
5
"But how long do you think ...
Unpublished

the US military and Guard will obey unlawful orders to kill their families?"

This is what is known as a scare tactic. Or do you have evidence to back up this scenario playing itself out?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/18/13 - 02:39 pm
7
4
Why yes I do....I'm glad you
Unpublished

Why yes I do....I'm glad you asked. I read about this thing called the American Revolution where colonists for the Royal Army joined the people of the newly formed nation and fought against the overwhelming forces of the British Army. Maybe you heard of it.

edit--- I see by the thumbs down on this and the following post, that someone must oppose a direct, accurate, and factual answer to the question I was asked. I wonder why facts are so offensive to some.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/18/13 - 01:27 pm
5
2
As far as the military being
Unpublished

As far as the military being ordered to kill their citizens....there was also this guy named Adolph Hitler. If you read up on him, you can see that very scenario play out there too. I'm sure the survivors don't consider it a scare tactic.

harley_52
23959
Points
harley_52 01/18/13 - 01:45 pm
5
1
What Happens After Gun Contol Is Law...

I know....I've posted this before, but it seems appropriate to this discussion.

________________________________________
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control: From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control: From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938: From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964: From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970: From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956: From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.
------------------------------
What makes anybody think the same thing wouldn't happen here?

Are you aware of the heavily armed force now being constructed within the Homeland Security Department?

Bizkit
33071
Points
Bizkit 01/18/13 - 01:45 pm
5
2
Gun ownership is a

Gun ownership is a constitutional right upheld by the SCOTUS. Abortion is a constitutional right to privacy upheld by the SCOTUS. Both kill people. Why does one bother some of you and one doesn't? In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths. When you examine homicides the majority are minority hispanic and african americans. So gun laws may protect against suicide but not likely the heinous crimes of late. Maybe they should just ban gun ownership in hispanics and african-americans-like that would ever happen. But wait odds are most of the crimes were with guns illegally owned or gained. All this gun control is such a farce when they can't control the border or immigration, can't control illicit drugs, can't stimulate the economy. If this would do any good I may support but it is just silly.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/18/13 - 01:48 pm
6
2
One correction bizkit....Gun
Unpublished

One correction bizkit....Gun ownership doesn't necessarily kill people....but abortion ALWAYS kills someone.

harley_52
23959
Points
harley_52 01/18/13 - 02:27 pm
3
1
"Gun ownership is a constitutional right upheld by the SCOTUS...

....Abortion is a constitutional right to privacy upheld by the SCOTUS."

That's a pretty misleading statement, Bizkit, though I'm sure not intentionally so. One right is stated, the other is implied (according to some). Whether there is even a Constitutional right to privacy is a frequent topic of debate.

Interestingly enough, the same Amendment (the 14th) that was used to legalize abortions, may end up being the one used to prohibit them. The key issue is whether or not an unborn baby is a "person," which is why the lefties' eyes bug out and steam starts rolling out of their ears whenever anybody suggests that what they call a zygote, amorphous cell mass, or whatever is the current code name for an unborn human life, is really a "person." That one word changes everything.

harley_52
23959
Points
harley_52 01/18/13 - 02:43 pm
4
1
Also....

The statistics you cite are very telling (for a fair minded person). The truth is that violent crime in general, and homicide in particular, has been dropping like a stone in most parts of the Country with the notable exception of big cities. Throw away the data for big cities and the USA is a safer place to live even than the European countries often cited as examples of safe havens.

Big cities in the United States have several characteristics in common....they are usually run by democrat mayors, they usually have higher than average unemployment, and they have a disproportionate number of minority citizens.....and they have more gang and drug activity than rural areas.

harley_52
23959
Points
harley_52 01/18/13 - 02:58 pm
3
2
There are Twice as Many Gun Murders In Chicago....

...most every month than there were at at the Sandy Hook mass murder.

Chicago had over 500 murders just last year. That's a bigger number than the number of military deaths in Afghanistan last year.

Do you hear the democrats talking about that? How about the mainstream media?

Crickets.....

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 01/18/13 - 03:29 pm
4
2
@Fedex

All the proof you should need is too look at all the Sheriffs throughout the Country openly saying they WILL NOT enforce new federal gun laws in their Counties. I was in the Marines during the 90's under Clinton but I still had my own brain. If Clinton or any politician had attempted to use the military to disarm the citizens, I would have led the charge to WALK OFF, call it desertion if you want, I would have DONE IT. I would have joined the opposition.

You can guarantee there are MASSIVE amounts of troops who will do the same if it ever happens now. The military would be completely split. So the President would NOT have the FULL FORCE of the military at his disposal. This issue, more than any I can think of, would cause massive insurrection. Abortion we don't like but it doesn't effect our safety, gay marriage many don't like, many support but it still doesn't effect our safety. This GUN issue would be the very issue to send this Country into insurrection. Obama and his minions WOULD NOT have the support of the military. Most of the Generals don't support him and that is very important if you understand how the military works.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs