Gun foes need to give it a rest

From the Frederick News Post - November 30, 2008

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=83325

Gun foes need to give it a rest

by Nick D'Apice

[This is a response to the Nov. 13 column, "The run on guns," by Elizabeth Marsh Cupino. ]

I never thought I'd say this, but thank goodness for the Supreme Court of the U.S. I also thank God that the Second Amendment was upheld by the court in D.C. v. Heller. This is about a civil liberty, not "the interests of anglers and hunters." This is as much a case of civil liberty as the 13th Amendment ending slavery and the 19th allowing women to vote (suffrage).

If the majority is fearful of gun ownership, then the U.S. Constitution should be amended, not interpreted. As much as many do not like it, this was just performed in California by the passing of Proposition 8; right or wrong, the will of the majority has been stated.

Until such time as the Constitution is amended, individuals will continue to exercise a right to bear arms, whether that be automatic assault weapons or concealed handguns. Laws that prevent such ownership are in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights and will be fought with the same intensity as Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage.

Also being a responsible weapons owner, my children are trained and familiar with the safe handling of firearms. I secure those weapons for quick access by me alone, and not my children. I rest easier knowing that an armed policeman is available at our high schools or there is an armed pilot in the cockpit of our commercial airliners.

I still don't get the controversy over the latter, as we entrust the "captain" with our lives. I personally would feel even safer if every adult on an airliner were armed; no longer would there be a fear of someone hi-jacking or storming the cockpit.

There is a reason why massacres happen in "gun-free zones." Honest, unarmed citizens cannot defend themselves against armed criminals. But because this is an emotional debate, most individuals who are fearful of weapons, or were raised to believe that "weapons kill" when in fact "people kill," believe that disarming everyone includes criminals, when in fact the statistics prove the converse!

But emotion dictates that the facts shouldn't get in the way of what we want; that is a normal human emotional response. In the meantime, if individuals wish to stockpile ammunition or guns because they believe a new administration will attempt to restrict that right, that's fine! If some individuals want an excuse to buy new weapons, then again, fine! I don't see the issue.

If these individuals were rushing to buy American-manufactured cars because the Big Three may go bankrupt, everyone would cheer and say "that's great," even though those same vehicles could be used to willfully terminate another person's life. But because weapons ownership is a feared element that cannot be controlled by a portion of the population, it is vilified as a habit of the "anglers and hunters."

I am neither an angler nor a hunter, but I am a proud firearms owner and Second Amendment advocate. I rest easier knowing that if a law is passed that contradicts that amendment, we will win in revoking that law because of the Supreme Court precedent; it may take time, but we will win.

And just as having "a little discrimination" or allowing women to vote on "some, but not all" of the issues would never be tolerated, we should not sit idle and allow some of the Second Amendment to be infringed upon in any way, including registration or restrictions. Until such time as the amendment is altered by the Constitutional process, it should not be isolated and subjected to exceptions that are justified by debate. In doing so, we expose all liberties to be subject to erosion by debate.

Please give it a rest. I'm as tired of hearing the anti-gun rhetoric as you probably are about preaching the evils of gun ownership. Also, you don't see me preaching on the benefits of restricting a women's right to vote (infringing upon the 13th) but instead defending the Second. If you feel that strongly, organize and amend the constitution. In other words, as was done in California: Put up, or shut up.

Until then, your First Amendment right is secured, and we can just ignore your rhetoric for the constant static it is.

Nick D'Apice writes from Ellicott City.