Friday, August 3, 2007

Oregonian Finally Prints Something Pro-Second Amendment

After printing a typical anti-Second Amendment diatribe on July 24th which started with the auspicious beginning “I don’t like guns…” I personally began to fear that The Oregonian would never print anything remotely positive about the Second Amendment. I’d written in to the paper on many occasions regarding the plethora of anti-gun editorials and misconceptions printed on their pages, but I’d never seen any contrary opinion printed…

… that is until Wednesday August, 1st. After the most recent diatribe cited above, I wrote a response and sent it to the paper. I am pleased to say that they published my letter with only minor editorial changes for clarity. I’m reprinting it here for your enjoyment!

Losing a child in an accident is unthinkable and senseless -- regardless of whether it's related to a firearm, an automobile or any other cause. So the family of Scott Rutherford, the Beaverton boy who was shot and killed last month in a target-shooting accident, deserves our most sincere condolences.

But we should admonish those with opportunistic zeal who would take advantage of this tragedy to grind a personal ax, as is evident in the very first line of Carol Robinson's commentary in The Oregonian ("Stop tolerating our national obsession," July 24) when she says, "I don't like guns." Last time I checked, personal dislike did not give anyone the right to line-item veto the Bill of Rights.

Robinson's views, while designed to elicit an emotional response, have no real substance and suggest a fantasy state in which people may feel safe but in fact are subject to reduced individual security.

Robinson wonders, when it comes to firearms, "how much of this attraction results from a society infatuated with violence." In modern America, that may be a fraction of the story, but the real story goes much deeper, is far more textured and is categorically ignored by those calling for greater gun control.

The framers of the Constitution chose to affirm several inalienable rights, among those the right to "Keep and Bear Arms." Note I say affirm, as no rights are granted by our Constitution or government. That which a government gives can easily be taken away. The framers had seen evidence of this behavior in governments firsthand and sought to preclude any of what they viewed as inalienable human rights from ever being abridged in our fledgling republic. They saw an armed populace as the ultimate check and balance against a government run amok and acting contrary to the interests, rights and liberties of its citizens.

Robinson suggests that we should implement "rational gun laws" but offers no indication as to what these laws would be or how they would be superior to existing laws. She even goes so far as to concede that additional gun control probably would not have prevented the death of Scott Rutherford. Yet she still unreasonably and illogically concludes that more laws are necessary.

Looking at the history of gun control in the United States and the world, violent crime using firearms has generally gone up not down in areas with strict gun control laws, as strict gun control guarantees a ready supply of defenseless victims.

I'm forced to conclude that Robinson has little true understanding of the history and issue of firearms in the United States. More gun control laws are not the answer because they are ineffective as well as unconstitutional. The only truly rational course of action is to enforce existing laws and perhaps stiffen penalties for crimes involving the use of a firearm.


I sincerely hope that this signifies that The Oregonian will print a wider range of views on Second Amendment issues going forward. I’m also interested in seeing if my editorial elicits the standard far left wing knee jerk response.

Until next time!

No comments: