Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GUNS: Where are viable solutions?

Letter by Michael D. Evans, Puyallup on June 30, 2010 at 2:35 pm with 30 Comments »
June 30, 2010 2:35 pm

This is quite a difficult issue before the public, with very valid opinions on either side of the fence. I find myself riding neatly atop that fence, primarily because I read and hear MANY quite valid arguments both for and against The Right to Bear Arms.

What I DON’T read or hear, are those offering viable SOLUTIONS to TODAY’S problems as regard the availability of guns to the general populace.

Yes, The Constitution guarantees The Right. The issues that led to the 2nd Amendment a couple of hundred years ago are so far withdrawn from the issues of today though, that the intent of amendment is nearly completely lost on today’s society. Yet, why SHOULDN’T we be allowed – as individuals – to possess firearms?

I don’t know the answer. I’d LIKE to. I’d like to be informed as to the solution, so that I – as an individual – might feel safe and comfortable as I go about my daily life, without the fears that I might unknowingly upset someone, unknowingly venture into the wrong neighborhood, might unknowingly wear the wrong color shirt or baseball cap without the fear that someone with The Right to bear a concealable, semi-automatic firearm might decide it’s time to unload a magazine in my direction.

The 2nd Amendment aside, THIS is the problem today and I for one, would much rather read about solutions to THIS problem, than to continually hear the whining and chest thumping about Our Rights.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 30
  1. Golly Mike, I don’t ever want to force you to own a firearm, and it’s nice but not necessary if you reciprocate, or not. The issues necessitating the 2nd Am. are especially in evidence even more today than they were in 1775, or 1296 or many other periods of time when tyranny flourished because freedom of conscience was neither appreciated nor protected. If you’d like to give up any other of your freedoms go right ahead but be glad that a practitioner of the 2nd might be in your range…to help YOU.BTW-your presently exercised right of freedom of the press was brought to you by “Gun” owners who paid with their lives …History up, please…

  2. Mike should know that where there is an increase in concealed weapons permits, crime goes down significantly. Where citizens can’t carry handguns, crime goes up. Last week in Chicago, where handguns are banned, there were 58 shootings and 8 deaths. I’ll take my changes armed. (Chicago’s law was overturned this week by the U.S. Supreme Court.)

  3. pazzo242 says:

    What’s the solution? Are you kidding? The solution is plain as day–leave the 2nd Amendment alone. A government that takes this right away (disarms the public) can then do what it wants without any potential of resistance. An armed public not only can protect themselves from criminals that want to do harm and from possible invasion, but also from a tyrannical government. Our right to bear arms was enacted for that purpose and we should fear any political party that wants to overturn that.

    One of the main fears of the Imperialistic Japanese during WW 2 concerning an invasion of the lower 48 states was that they knew the vast American populace was armed. For that reason they avoided that tactic because they knew the resistance would have been huge and they didn’t know if they could be successful. Imagine that, they would have rather faced our military complex then the general population—all because of the 2nd Amendment.

  4. blakeshouse says:

    Ben Franklin said it best…Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither………….

  5. beerBoy says:

    And Senator Grassley believes that the right to bear arms precedes the Constitution because it is a god-given right.

  6. When governments begin selling safety in exchange for liberty, deserving them has nothing to do with anything as governments will not guarantee your safety, but guaranteed they will take your willing sacrifice of liberty for the promise of safety. Why people who are willing to sacrifice liberty for the notion of safety are undeserving of neither is because they are so willing to sacrifice liberty and look to someone else to provide them with safety.

  7. theogsters says:

    Guns are a total bore. In my experience, those who love guns usually need them to enhance their stature; they fancy themselves as modern day “John Wayne” types — lots of swagger. If, on the other hand, you need a gun to feel safe in your neighborhood, then, maybe you should move.

  8. Sumner401 says:

    Why should guns be the only thing in this country that is not regulated, when the Constitution itself calls for them to be “well regulated”.

    No one needs a fully automatic rifle for any reason.
    No one needs an assault rifle for any reason.

    I’ve owned and still do own many different weapons and there is no reason to not regulate them, not one.

  9. tubbythetuba says:

    The Bill of Rights have always been held as being equal in stature. Replace the word Arms with the word Free Speech, or Cruel and Unsusal Punishment, and you will see why. It’s interesting that the Bill of Rights are supposed to protect the People from The Gubment, but it’s the Gubment that enforces them……Therein is the reason for the Second. You may confirm that by browsing the Federalist Papers.

  10. nwcolorist says:

    Think of all the money poured by the anti-gun lobby over the years towards overturning the 2nd Amendment. If that money had been funneled into a program teaching respect for and the proper use of firearms, we might be well on our way towards a solution to the problem.

  11. Sumner401 says:

    Over turning the 2nd amendment??
    Man, when you get something wrong you really get it wrong!

  12. LuckyCharm says:

    Free speech? Not a good example, tubby. If I yell “Fire” in a crowded theater when there isn’t one, I’ll be in legal trouble. Practicing my religion is protected, unless that religion mandates regular human sacrifice. We’re supposed to have the right of assembly, but we still need a permit for a public gathering of over 50 people.

    The point is that all rights have limits. The 2nd amendment might (and I say “might” because Constitutional scholars disagree on this) guarantee an individual’s right to possess firearms, but even if it does, nothing says that right must be unlimited, any more so than any other Constitutional right.

  13. LuckyCharm says:

    I have to think there’s something seriously wrong with a country in which people get their panties all in a wad about the partial display of a woman’s breast, but insist that families and children should be subjected to the sight of openly armed strangers walking among us.

  14. FreeAmerica says:

    Solution? As if legal gun owners are a threat?

    Taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn’t make it any safer to walk into a bad neighborhood, wear the wrong gang color, upset somebody with a right to bear arms.

    Try enforcing the law!
    An attack on the 2nd has no bearing on gang neighborhoods or gang colors….get a clue.

  15. FreeAmerica says:

    Lucky…..
    So…expand on openly armed citizens walking among us?

    Does it bother you to have hunters carrying firearms?

    Just because you libs have a problem with breasts and guns doesn’t mean I do.

  16. LuckyCharm says:

    FA, I have no problem with either, in and of themselves, but when a brief, televised “wardrobe malfunction” becomes a matter of Congressional investigation, I really have to wonder about our legislature’s priorities. When people feel they need to arm themselves just to get a cup of coffee, I have to wonder what they’re compensating for…. And when somebody sees nothing wrong with either case, I have to wonder what it must be like to have to live in his universe.

  17. spyacoach says:

    I can’t say I’m all that surprised at many of the comments I’ve read here.

    The Chest-Thumpers thump their chests. The Big Brother Paranoia apparently still exists.

    I’m all for stricter enforcement of our laws, although that in itself, comes with a cost to all of society and would require quite a turn-around in the popular opinion of today.

    Again I would ask for SOLUTIONS, or more appropriately, opinions as to steps TOWARD solutions, since there isn’t an On/Off solution to this issue any more than there is to many other important issues facing our society

    I’m not sure 350 million armed constituents is the solution(Actually, I’m pretty sure it ISN’T). I’m also pretty sure that giving up our hard-defended freedoms for the sake of “Security” also isn’t the solution. Is the status-quo the solution? I don’t know.

  18. “No one needs a fully automatic rifle for any reason.
    No one needs an assault rifle for any reason.”

    Maybe you should tell that to the Black Panthers… Eric Holder will not likely listen tho.

  19. FreeAmerica says:

    Lucky wrote:
    “When people feel they need to arm themselves just to get a cup of coffee, I have to wonder what they’re compensating for…. ”

    So what are women compensating for… or lack of ?
    What does arming ones self to go get a cup of coffee have to do with the right to own guns?

    Typical liberal rant…. no substance just ranting.

  20. FreeAmerica says:

    Sumner401 says:
    July 1, 2010 at 10:16 am
    Why should guns be the only thing in this country that is not regulated, when the Constitution itself calls for them to be “well regulated”.

    No one needs a fully automatic rifle for any reason.
    No one needs an assault rifle for any reason.

    I’ve owned and still do own many different weapons and there is no reason to not regulate them, not one.

    Where does the constitution say “well regulated” guns?

    Automatic weapons are regulated to the point of impossible to own…unless you are a criminal.

    Explain assualt rifle? Liberal terminology that has no explanation…in other words “you haven’t a clue”.
    People that are clueless about guns shouldn’t own them….

  21. spyacoach says:

    FreeAmerica says:
    July 2, 2010 at 9:32 am

    People that are clueless about guns shouldn’t own them….

    But the Constitution says,,,,,,,,

  22. FreeAmerica says:

    spyacoach says:
    July 2, 2010 at 9:34 am
    FreeAmerica says:
    July 2, 2010 at 9:32 am

    People that are clueless about guns shouldn’t own them….

    But the Constitution says,,,,,,,,

    The right to own or not has nothing to do with the responsibilty.
    “Shouldn’t” is common sense…like skydiving….one can buy a parachute but should know how to use it before juumping.

  23. spyacoach says:

    Honestly, I am not(and don’t wish to) debate the 2nd Amendment or the freedom we as citizens have.

    I’m only concerned that in our society today, there are an awful lot of “Shouldn’t Haves”,,,, who have,,,, and therefore it’s become often, quite difficult to feel very “Safe”.

    We as a society out to recognize that and work together on ways to make that better. Some tyrannical banishment of firearms and/or ownership obviously isn’t the answer. Given the state of things today, absolute freedom also doesn’t appear to be the answer.

    I just wonder what IS the answer AND I wonder if people on either side of the fence are willing to step down off their soapboxes and work together as a society to make something better than it is today?

  24. FreeAmerica says:

    spyacoach,
    A society of useless laws to create revenue divides government and citizens.
    Government can’t regulate criminal activity therefor the need to protect oneself from criminal activity becomes self preservation.

    Solution:
    Shrink government to effeciency levels acceptable to the common man, tax citizens for a effecient government, repeal self protection and revenue based laws, create government for the people and not against the people.

    Example:
    Seat belt law, great revenue source for the state but a self protection law creating a rift between police and citizen.

  25. FreeAmerica says:

    One question Chuck,

    Why did seat belt ticket go from $96 to $124?

  26. spyacoach says:

    In an effort to keep from wandering too far from the original subject, short of everyone carrying a weapon in order that oppressors and criminals don’t have the upper hand, how might we move toward making our streets a safer place?

    Obviously there is a large contingent who believe that criminals can be rehabilitated, an equally large contingent who are opposed to the cost of ever-expanding prisons and it’s considered barbaric to “eliminate” them. I personally don’t believe going back to Dodge City and Tombstone days is a viable option and any kind of limiting the availability of the weapons that criminals prefer falls victim to our 2nd Amendment rights,,,, leaving me wondering how we cope?

  27. FreeAmerica says:

    Spycoach,

    Criminals weapons of choice would include anything available to harm a victim which the Government can’t legislate.

    At some point common sense has to prevail, you can’t put everybody in jail to create a “perfect” society.

    Government can’t legislate or protect citizens from themselves or the criminal element, only we can control our enviroment…be it dodge city or tombstone.

  28. LuckyCharm says:

    I went to NationMaster.com and checked a few statistics. One thing I noticed was that in major crime categories — assault, homicide, burglary, car theft, rape — the US far outranks Japan in occurrences per capita. This chart depicts the numbers for several countries.

    Japan also has less police officers and jails per capita than we do. The country is known for its extremely strict gun control laws. By contrast, Switzerland also has very low crime rates, but there, people are actually encouraged (some would say required) to own guns for national defense.

    These figures would suggest that a direct correlation cannot be drawn between the prevalence of gun owners and a nation’s crime rate. What, then, could account for the difference?

    Japanese culture highly values respect in all its various forms, from bowing to terms of address to shoe removal. It also highly values conformity, versus individualism, and high school students when surveyed cited individualism as the number one threat facing children today.

    Switzerland is known for its diversity, and three major languages predominate there. Education is strongly encouraged, and kin groups are strong. The middle class thrives, and ostentatious displays of wealth are frowned upon. In social interactions, respect for privacy and discretion are the rule of thumb. Access to political officials is relatively easy, but it’s considered bad form to unnecessarily bother a well-known personage.

    The only common denominators I can see between Japan and Switzerland vs. the US are 1) Economic security and prosperity, 2) Educational achievement, and 3) A culture of respect. To borrow a bumper sticker saying, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” American culture emphasizes rugged individualism, making it on your own with nobody’s help, and looking out for #1. But where conditions exist that permit people a feeling of relative security and belonging in their daily lives, where everybody feels like they have a chance to succeed, where social norms encourage looking out for one another, it appears that crime rates tend to be lower.

  29. FreeAmerica says:

    Confidence in our governments ability to make society safer keeps me thinking of the old saying…..
    Better to be judged by12 than packed by 6

  30. Pack your bags Cheryl.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0