The slippery slope of gun control

The slippery slope of gun control

Gun control is not about guns. It is about control. The Second Amendment states its purpose to defend the citizenry against a tyrannical government. The fact that this administration wants to take our guns seems self-incriminating. Without the Second Amendment, freedoms in other amendments are meaningless. The use of fear to allow wrongful governance has already eroded personal freedoms.

In many cases, guns save lives. There are approximately 8 million active concealed carry permits, and up to 55 million homes with a firearm. The vast majority is responsible and law abiding. Control of ownership will not make citizens safer and will empower criminals. Gun free zones assure criminals that their actions will be unchallenged. I would rather shop in the store that deters criminals.

The ban on large capacity magazines and assault rifles sounds like a good argument. But what is assault? Any rifle can be used for assault, as can a bomb or a Buick into a crowd. Let’s focus on laws against criminal behavior, not objects. Limiting magazine capacity is like New York City’s law prohibiting sugary drinks over 16 ounces. You can always buy another drink, and you can always reload or carry two guns. We should be more concerned about what will surely be banned after assault rifles, magazines and soda pop.

Having armed guards in our schools is disturbing. Do we want that culture for our children? It would be expensive and ineffective. Selecting who can carry in the workplace creates another dilemma. If only the airline pilot, teacher or minister can carry, those individuals will be targeted first. The good news is we don’t have to do anything to be safer. We just need to stop legislators from restricting rights we already have. Those trained to carry, can do the most to protect themselves, their students and their families. The police cannot protect everybody.

Ann Davis, Youngstown

Marching to a fearful beat

Hup! Two! Three! Four! The Tin Soldiers of the NRA are marching.

A recent letter-writer from Boardman will be the first in the long line of cacophonic diatribe written about taking away citizen rights and taking guns away.

A NRA sympathizer who needs an automatic weapon to shoot a duck, a goose, or a partridge in a pear tree needs to take up knitting instead of hunting.

The Supreme Court completely ignored the first half of the Second Amendment. The Militia mentioned in the Constitution is today the Army Reserve, and the two Air Guards. It does not include the NRA members who call themselves a militia. Perhaps if such militias were rounded up by Seal Team 6 and sent to Afghanistan, the Supreme Court would rule differently on the matter.

Responsible gun owners, unlike NRA fanatics, do not fear regulation of guns.

John Zordich, Youngstown