Response to "Gun Compromise"

  • Thursday, April 25, 2013

Dear Editor:
This letter is in reply to Brooks Moore’s letter titled “Gun Compromise” that was published in the 17 April Journal Scene. While I appreciate the concern and compassion expressed, I would like to clarify several points.
First, yes, I believe one of the second amendment’s greatest objectives is to protect American citizens from their government, and an understanding of the history of human nature “shouts” that this is true. Our Bill of Rights was “demanded” mainly because We the People in 1787 feared a powerful federal government. Though there are hundreds of quotes that I could us to support why our citizens need a strong Second Amendment, this one by Lord Acton is sufficient. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
Second, I disagree that guns promote violence as suggested by the writer. Guns have been on the American scene throughout our history. Only within the last twenty-five years have rather frequent, senseless, multiple killings entered our society. What has changed within this time period for something like the horrific Sandy Hook Elementary School (SH) shootings to occur?
Well, I suggest we most likely have a far greater chance of reducing the possibility of another SH episode if we concentrate on fatherless homes or homes that have fathers but are fatherless, violent entertainment whether live, cinema or electronic, and public education instilling into the minds and hearts of our children the humanistic concept of relativism which is only one negative teaching of humanism, to name a few possibilities. 
The Humanist Manifesto I of 1933 will provide other beliefs of this “ism” that are proposals that only lead to behaviors that, in my opinion, have led to the “nones” as reported by the Pew Institute that tend to be more unaffiliated with organized groups, particularly religious affiliation, who donate less to charity, participate in fewer volunteer organizations and whose individualism can easily become atomization. The bottom line is that guns don’t kill people. People kill people. I agree with Jeff Snyder who is quoted as saying: “Don't think of it as `gun control', think of it as victim disarmament….”
Finally, in reference to going back to “the Wild West where everyone carried a gun,” that isn’t a bad idea though the writer implies differently. Any check of the facts will reveal that there were relatively few “gun fights” even though guns were prevalent in the Old West, and most of the “gun fights” were between the law and outlaws. When responsible adults are permitted, after satisfying current CCP requirements, to freely carry a concealed weapon, he or she will find himself/herself living in a far more polite society.
I suggest that if a number of SH teachers and administrators had had concealed firearms (instant responders) when the deranged kid began to fire his weapons at SH then the carnage wouldn’t have been as severe. The death toll was astronomical because the police (first responders as opposed to instant responders) arrived only in time to verify that ambulances were needed.
Michael Greenstreet
Persimmon Woods Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina

Latest Videos
News from Twitter

The Journal Scene

© 2016 The Journal Scene an Evening Post Industries company. All Rights Reserved.

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Parental Consent Form.