With all due respect, comments like the ones published in the in the April 16 issue of the Telegram, both shock and confuse me.
The extreme brand of distrust for the government mimics the same attitudes expressed by anarchist like Timothy McVeigh, and the members of the Davidians cult in Waco, Texas. This distrust for the government expresses hostility at a similar level.
Factually speaking, Obama has always advocated for “assault weapons” bans — although his terminology may not be correct — but has never advocated for taking guns away from Americans.
In his first term, Obama did not pursue additional gun legislation at all, and, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed legislation would have “grandfathered” in semi-automatics already owned by the public — meaning that none of these currently owned weapons could be confiscated.
Despite the “hot potato” nature of an issue like this, Obama and others, both Democrats and Republicans were deeply moved by the death of 20 young children and their heroic teachers. And, believe it or not, sometimes personal grief becomes a catalyst for actions.
Contrary to the letter writer’s claim that unlimited possession of firearms allows Patriots to defend the rights of “we the people,” the fact is, that a very large and clear majority of Americans want to improve existing regulations. So, in that regard, Obama is the one facilitating the will of “we the people?”
I can understand an opinion that additional gun regulations may violate the 2nd Amendment, but not why someone would believe a government takeover is immanent, or even possible?
But, common sense regulations are not attempts to “sadistically dismember” the 2nd Amendment, but rather, an attempt to determine the boundaries of its authority. And, if we interpret the word “arms” in the language of the 2nd as being a literal attempt to ensure us ownership of any kinds of “arms” by definition, we could own bazookas, flamethrowers, fighter jets, or even nuclear bombs — which are all different types of “arms.” And, without periodic interpretations by the courts, the 2nd Amendment would be grated unassailable and God-like authority that could never be challenged.
Peter W. Johnson,