I am writing this letter in part angered and in part saddened at the ignorance displayed by Elliot R. Field's piece on Sept. 16 (Ban favors gun boundaries
responsibility). I'm angered that some would so easily toss our personal liberties aside in the name of symbolism. I'm saddened that this disregard of freedom manifests itself in irrational thought and misinformation.
First things first: you have the right to own firearms. Let no one tell you any differently. The crux of this country is a notion of individual liberty and responsibility. You have the right to your life, and you have the right to live it as you please as long as you do not trample on the rights of others. You have the right to defend your life with firearms if necessary.
Some will claim that because the Second Amendment uses the word militia, it applies only to groups such as the National Guard. Look up militia in the dictionary. One definition says it is the entire body of civilians eligible and fit for military service. In fact, federal law (Title 10, Section 331) distinguishes between the organized militia which includes the National Guard, and unorganized militia which consists of able-bodied citizens. Besides, if the Second Amendment applies only to organized groups like the National Guard, then the 1970 Kent State massacre simply would have been a legal implementation of the Second Amendment.
Field's ignorance is so apparent in the article -it is disgusting that a newspaper would run the story. Field contends it was never illegal to purchase a TEC-9 under the expired ban. It was illegal to purchase a TEC-9 manufactured after the law went into effect, but previously manufactured weapons were still available. I guess the case could be made that since more weapons are legal to purchase now, the price will drop in accordance to the laws of supply and demand and, therefore, more people will purchase them. But considering liberal's disdain for tax cuts, I have a feeling economic analysis was not a part of Field's reasoning.
It is wrong to contend that banned weapons are any more dangerous than non-banned weapons. The law banned no fully automatic weapons; those have been heavily regulated since 1934. Yes, you can now have a gun with a grenade launcher, but try buying grenades down at the local gun shop. You can't. Do bayonet mounts really make guns that more dangerous? How many drive-by-bayonetings have you heard of?
Moreover, with as little as some duct tape and a 20 oz. Pepsi bottle, you can convert any semi-automatic rifle into what was legally defined as an assault weapon. Would it make the weapon any more dangerous? No. What Congress actually did in 1994 was ban guns because they look scary, and such an action tramples on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of this nation's citizens.
Finally, Field contends that the law should have been in place because it is a symbolic notion that gun rights must be limited in some form. I agree in part; all freedoms have their limits. No individual should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction, or any other weapon that is irresponsible in nature. But to contend that we should ban certain weapons as a symbolic act simply because they look scary is ludicrous.
One last thing: If you are concerned about civil liberties and are supporting John Kerry, you should be ashamed of yourself. Kerry co-sponsored 2003 legislation that would have given the attorney general full discretion in determining what firearms are too scary-looking to own. Kerry must think John Ashcroft should be able to tell you whether you can defend your life.
-Casey Baker is the vice president of the
OU Second Amendment Club. Send him an e-mail at cb313901@ohiou.edu.
17
Archives
The Post Editorial Board
