Some time ago, an article entitled More guns-More Deaths ran in this newspaper.
The author of that item, obviously did not do due diligence to research this subject. As was documented by Prof. John Lott in his thoroughly researched book, More Guns= Less crime, more guns carried by law-abiding citizens equal less crime. Law abiding citizens obey the law; criminals do not.
How would more laws stripping these citizens of their God-given right of self-preservations, including the means to do so, as guaranteed by the secnd amendment of the Constitution, have stopped any of these outrages against people? A law already on the books, or indeed a number of laws, were violated.
The thug who killed those people in Aurora, Colorado, stated that he first looked for a criminal-friendly establishment, as shown by their gun-free zone sign, to ascertain that he would be the only one there that was armed and thus assure his own safety. Let’s look at the Second Amendment which is the law of the land. A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well-regulated is defined as a well-regulated clock that keeps good time and militia is defined as the body of people as a whole, is comprised of all adults with the exception of certain elected officials and persons who are mentally challenged. These are basically the definitions used by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Bill of Rights. Some undereducated people think that this militia refers to the National Guard. However, this was written decades before the National Guard came into existence and there was no National Guard when this was written and passed and became the bed-rock law.
Citizens who have not been stripped of their rights by the commission of a felony or otherwise, referred to in the First, Fourth and other amendments to the constitution have the right to keep and bear arms. In writings by Jefferson in regard to arm, he held that in lieu of a standing army, the people should be well-armed as an army with equal or similar bearable arms.
It is therefore obvious, clear, evident and apparent that any law, ordinance, rule or otherwise in any manner, shape, form or fashion that encroaches on the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms should be held to be illegal as a clear violation of the law of the land as established by the Bill of Rights.
Now that the meaning of the Second Amendment has been clearly defined, I am very curious to see how a law can be crafted that would actually stop a law breaker without violating the established foregoing rights of the law-abiding citizens.
The writer goes on to erroneously claim that these mass shootings should be declining. Did you ever consider that if we did not have these criminally friendly gun-free zones the perpetrators of these outrages would not be the only safe person if law abiding citizens were armed? As a wise sage once opined, an armed society is a polite society.
I have been told that the police are only minutes away. As one who carried a badge for the State of Mississippi for over 20 years and taught firearms for law enforcement officers during that time. I firmly respect and appreciate the job that our law enforcement community does.
In the final analysis, each of us is responsible for our own safety and of our family and those around us. We should not have these illegal restrictions on the tools need to fulfill our obligations.
Did you ever consider that this is not the tool, but the person behind it that is the problem? The dangers are not created by a rabid gun culture, but rather by those who are so short-sighted and apparently uneducated.
Lt. Elmore, Kosciusko
