"Why should anyone be allowed......."

A friend of mine from Virginia responded to a editorial in a Norfolk newspaper asking why the government should "allow" the people to have guns and ammunition. His reply says alot. He is a retired U.S. Navy flyer and graduate of the Naval Academy.

Re: “Reason fails in the gun debate,” editorial Feb. 7: The first five words of your editorial told me everything I needed to know about what was coming: “Why should anyone be allowed …” The writer’s underlying precept seems to be that government “allows” us to engage in activities. He seems dumfounded that government continues to “allow” us to purchase guns and ammunition magazines and to consume alcohol while openly carrying firearms. He cannot conceive of any rational reason to “allow” us to do these things.
Might I suggest that the writer take a moment to reread the Preamble to the Constitution? It is “We The People” who “allow” government to limit our activities within a strict set of rules. If the activity falls outside of that strict set of rules, it is none of government’s business. Government is instituted by The People not to create and confer fundamental rights; it is instituted to protect those rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson understood this with great clarity. Why cannot your editorial writer?

David A. Spriggs
Norfolk

:schild42:

+1 I wish Thomas Jefferson was still around to run for president.

Whaaat. The people are supposed to control the government, How Can That Be! Duh.

Excellent reply to a fool.

Well said. How this concept escapes so many citizens amazes me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadRunner71

Well said. How this concept escapes so many citizens amazes me.

---

Ummmm....... Public Schools maybe... there should be no reason you are confused about why.

Let your friend know that was a terrific response. It might just let a little light in for a few dim witted people.

:35:

:35:

Too bad the logic will fall on deaf ears.

Here is a link to the full editorial, if anyone wants to read it.

Its main argument: That all reason flies out the window when guns are being debated.


http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/reason-fails-gun-debate

.

Take the first words of the article and finish the idea with the final words.

Quote:

---

Why should anyone be allowed...

---

Quote:

---

That's a slippery slope too dangerous to contemplate.

---

Quote:

---

If they are allowed to take away 20-round magazines, pretty soon they'll come after box cutters, the ingredients used to make napalm and, possibly, even jawbones.

That's a slippery slope too dangerous to contemplate.

---

It is not an article. It is an anti-gun rant from a person who has never been called upon to defend their family or themselves from the violent criminals who prey on our society.

Derisive statements like those in the quote are the hallmark of the ultra liberal anti-self defense blissninny types.

Retired Navy / Norfolk Resident here and I must Bravo Zulu to the top gun. (that is Navy talk for good job)

That "writer" needs to understand that what is not "prohibited by law" is therefore legal.