This written communication is about three letters to your newspaper regarding guns. (1) “Stored firearms help to save lives,” “Anticipates court’s gun case ruling,” (3) “Supports firearms insurance statute [San Jose].”
As citizen who believes in common sense and humanitarian concerns regarding firearms, I wish to comment about these letters.
The first letter is about storage safeguards for those who have firearms. This is a very important consideration. Thanks for publishing this information which came from those who are involved in these practices.
The second letter about “court’s gun case ruling.” To the author, Bob Way, I do hope I need to purchase many “adult diapers.” In that manner, I can collect what goes into such diapers and wipe The stuff in the diapers in the faces of those who push their emotionally-based and sensationalist-based ideas for free gun and rifle purchase and use into their faces.
The 2nd Amendment is about militias, but not intended for personal individual rights. Militias were an important to safeguard against a government which squelches freedom of speech and does not abide by the U.S. Constitution.
How about if Mr. Bob Way becomes familiar with the Preamble to the U.S> Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
1. “establish justice…”
1. establish justice… With people like Bob Way, they think like immature ones and consider the only justice is the justice in which they approve and only for their individual rights. They forget the responsibility required in order to maintain our rights.
2. “insure domestic tranquility…” Domestic tranquility is also defined in a false manner by immature people who are not able to take responsibility for the rights and liberties they have. Such people simply want “law and order” defined in their way only. It is the reason why there are so many incidents reported in which, for the same law and order ideas for domestic tranquility is to arrest and charge African-Americans by dredging up a wrongful charge while letting white people go or just ignoring white people entirely and looking the other way. Case in point. Possession of marijuana and making certain that a black person is checked, while a white person is not. Such measures do not insure domestic tranquility and often encourages the use of gun violence, in the process.
3. “provide for the common defence…” The important word in this statement is “common.” Militias are designed for the “common” defense, not individual defense for individual rights. “Common” is not meant for a small group of people, but for the overall defense of the American government and all inhabitants of the USA who are depending on domestic tranquility.
4. “promote the general welfare…” The general welfare is far from being promoted by individualist ideas regarding guns or small groups like the KKK and Jim Crow despots in Dixie. It is not promoted by those with guns who live in fear of colored people and minorities who might one day become more of a majority. We all need to coexist, not be subjected to unsubstantiated thoughts of conspiracies by emotional and immature folks, based on sensationalist attitudes.
5. “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Liberties are not defined by one minority group of white supremacists with red necks and bigotry and hatred towards others and then they form a militia on that basis. They deny blessings and liberty to others in society by use of fear tactics and guns.
Ironically, When a government defends civil liberties and other matters, in line with the preamble to the U.S. Constitution it is not to be faced by small groups of militia with guns in the USA. Whether it is white supremacists or the black panthers, it is small groups of militia with guns and these groups do not respect the U.S Constitution with words like this in the preamble.
Hunting for deer and other animals, in my estimation is all right. WE just need to follow guidelines offered in the first letter about safeguarding weapons. There is also no need for automatic weapons in public. Hunters have told me they so no common sense for using an automated weapon on deer because the meat would be rendered of little use. I have heard hunters say that they are more challenged by using a bow and arrow, not a rifle. It is all about common sense approaches regarding guns.
Yes, one can argue that gun permits and other laws for gun control might not work. Correct. Humans and their institutions lack perfection so one would expect there to be imperfections. A mature person with common sense would take this into consideration.
An example of the failure of gun control is the mentally deranged guy near Rochester, several years ago, who, on a Christmas Eve, set a home on fire and began a rampage of killing firefighters and police. The mentally deranged guy had been in prison and not allowed to own a gun. The law is a good one. But, this mentally deranged person got a neighbor to purchase the gun for him. That neighbor then became an accessory to murder. People against gun control mention it is the person and the mental stability at fault, not the guns. In this case the gun was the fault and the law existed for the protection of those who were subjected to killing by a mentally deranged person. With this case, I hope I can have an adult diaper and rub in the writer’s face the contents. Sad to say that one of my great-great-grandparents was from the Way family which had settled on Long Island in the 1600s. “…liberty and justice FOR ALL,” not just liberty for the individual rights of militias which represent a small portion of the population.
Lastly, the letter from Bruce Joffe regarding liability insurance for ownership of guns is very pertinent. The topic is about the mandate in San Jose, CA, for gun owners to carry liability insurance. Sad to say that we need to resort to such practices, but it is a practical solution.
One statement by Joffe needs to be emphasized. “Responsible, law-abiding gun owners risk being seen as extreme and crazy when lawsuits [as in the case of the mandate in San Jose] are filed to oppose such necessary regulation of lethal weapons.” This is comparable to “responsible, law-abiding” rifle owners who hunt in the wild for venison meat and are portrayed as being crazy for their opposition to automatic weapons. Perhaps gun regulation, based on common sense of human beings, is a more appropriate terminology to describe “gun control?”