Letters: Still talking gun control

Johnson City Press • Aug 23, 2019 at 6:00 AM

Want to have your voice heard? Send a Letter to the Forum. Authors must sign their letters and include addresses and phone numbers for verification. Letters may be no longer than 300 words and will be edited for grammar, style and length. Send your submission to Mailbag, P.O. Box 1717, Johnson City, TN 37605-1717 or [email protected].

Who polices the police?

I would just like for everyone to consider this: What kind of country would we have if only the police and the government had the guns?

Bluff City

Gun rights have conditions

I attended the meeting of the Jonesborough Board of Mayor and Aldermen which Mr. Hanley referenced in his “Be afraid” Forum letter (Aug. 18).

At this meeting, Ms. Lamberts expressed not only the justified fear of Americans, now at risk of violent death in almost any imaginable public space, by someone engaged in mass slaughter with legally purchased, military assault weapons.

She also, though, asked of the town planners that they support stronger gun control legislation, at the federal and state levels, with regard to these. Reading aloud from the Constitution, she pointed out that the Second Amendment is stated conditionally, coupling the right to bear arms to national security, a “well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” as the amendment states.

I agree with Frances. The other amendments are stated without limiting conditions — such as “Excessive bail shall not be required” (VIII), “The right of the people to be secure in their houses … shall note be violated” (IV). Amendment II, on the other hand, expressly ties the right to bear arms to military defense needs.

These are now fulfilled by our “well regulated,” properly trained and disciplined, voluntary United States Armed Forces.

Perhaps we should all re-read the Constitution and note its distinction between general, unconditional rights and this, conditionally-stated right.

Ms. Lamberts urged that the town government support national resumption of a ban on military-style weapons, as instituted under the elder President Bush but later allowed to expire. We have clearly become less safe since its expiration.


How would gun control work?

In my extensive experience as a former legislative director of a firearms rights organization, the gun prohibitionists are driven by angst, guilt and anger, as well as dogmatic slogans ("weapons of war") substituting for knowledge and dialogue. Examples: The NRA is a union of gun owners, not a commercial "gun lobby," which anyone watching the NRA convention on YouTube would know. The U.S. government sold millions of semi-automatic "weapons of war" to the public after WWII — why no massacres before Columbine High School? "Gun violence" — I never saw a gun shoot by itself.

Fact: NRA members are not ignorant deplorables — gun control leads inevitably and invariably to advocacy for and enactment of confiscatory regulatory schemes. There is never enough. Do the research.

Alcohol prohibition is an exact analog. What about illicit drug control and cartels? Mention these and the shock is almost comical, were the subject not 50 years of schemes to circumvent the Second Amendment, both legislative and legislation by judiciary. Almost all gun control schemes violate the Second Amendment; ask gun control activists about infringement of abortion rights? Forget dialogue.

So, for the leftist letter writers, why don't you address my point about drug, alcohol, and abortion prohibition and why your "final solution" is going to work?


Treating shooting victims

The recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton are indeed horrific, and it appears that the currently NRA-controlled Congress is unwilling to chance losing their NRA millions in order to consider any law that might possibly help reduce the number of these mass killings. Consequently, we can be somewhat sure, more mass murders will occur.

One could even happen here in the Tri-Cities, excuse me, the “Appalachian Highlands.”

This raises the question, where would the potential number of wounded be treated? In an “economic move,” Ballad Health has seen fit to declare the region needs only one trauma center.

How would one trauma center be able to handle a large influx of people in need of emergency treatment? How many would die waiting for this emergency care? What if the shooting were to happen outside the immediate area of Johnson City, how many would die in transport? What if I lived as far away as Norton?

These are questions Ballad officials have seemingly ignored in order to not risk losing the huge sums they receive in annual salaries. As a nonprofit, the money has to go somewhere, they apparently think more of themselves than to consider the well-being of those they profess to offer “quality” treatment.

Johnson City

Johnson City Press Videos