Should right to own a gun outweigh right to live safely?

Posted 5/14/19

To the Editor: The debate over gun control, gun violence and gun rights refers repeatedly to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. While we keep arguing over and over on this controversial issue, no action has been taken to stop the killing of

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Should right to own a gun outweigh right to live safely?


To the Editor:

The debate over gun control, gun violence and gun rights refers repeatedly to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. While we keep arguing over and over on this controversial issue, no action has been taken to stop the killing of innocent people and children by a gunman. The mass shooting has been recorded in any place and anywhere in the United States. It is unequaled the number of mass domestic violence we experience nowadays in the United States. No one is safe regardless of where you are.

We’ve witnessed gun violence indoors and outdoors. It is unfortunate to remember these mass shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007, at a night club in Orlando, Florida in 2016, at Sandy Hook Elementary School of Newtown, Connecticut, at a Las Vegas concert in Nevada where 58 people were dead and 500 injured. And recently in 2018, the Parkland High School mass shooting in Florida added 17 deaths. We are counting the number of losses. Our children are being shot every day under our eyes. Powerlessly, we continued to mourn.

According to a recent report, the United States has more gun owners than any other country in the world. There were 89 guns per 100 people (Smith 2017). Also, the United States has more gun violence than any other country. Despite the fact children and youths continue to die in mass shootings, gun owners and anti-gun control people continue to deny that guns in America is a problem.

We cannot ignore the complexity and irony of the issue around gun rights. People who do not favor gun control weigh their position on the Second Amendment. Here is what it says: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Hiding behind the Second Amendment right to not taking action is outrageous. It is simply a pretext. It is pure hypocrisy if we stick to the Second Amendment saying that we cannot violate the Constitution. We can amend the Second Amendment to fix the problem of gun control. We started when we proclaimed the abolition of slavery. Josiah Atkins, a Connecticut soldier, when he saw George Washington’s plantation, wrote in his journal: “Alas! That person, who pretends to stand for the rights of mankind for liberties of society, can delight in oppression, & that even of the worst kind!” (Norton, Mary Beth & Al 1877).

In the 20th century, we need to adapt to the change in society. We need to continue moving forward. If change means violating the Constitution, we have failed the Constitution already. The abolition of slavery by former President Abraham Lincoln was a clear message that we cannot always rely on the Constitution at all time.

In today’s United States, our ancestors would have been furious at all the strides we have made so far. The Bill of Rights did not include blacks and women as citizens. That being said, taking the Bill of Rights in its context of the 18th century, a slave could not bear arms and were not considered as people. It was designed only for the white male owners of the United States because “Male citizenship rights refer to whiteness” (Norton, Mary Beth & Al 1877).

How can we find a common ground to solve the problem of guns in the country? Are there solutions to this curse? Gun owners’ lobby against gun control stick to the Second Amendment saying that gun control will take away their right to own guns. Congress refuses to enact laws that will regulate guns in the country, acknowledging that they do not want to take away the rights of people to bear arms while the number of gun violence has increased and we buried our children every day. “Gun control can be regulations on who can buy and sell firearms, what kinds of firearms one can own and sell, and where and how it can be carried” (Smith 2017).

Indeed, the real reason why the Senate and the House of Representatives refuse to act on gun control is hidden. It is way far beyond the Second Amendment right. It is all about keeping their political power as elected officials. They know what is at stake in case they do the right thing. They are unlikely to be reelected. In order to keep their power at the House and in the Senate, they will not take action. In Australia, for example, reports showed that strict gun laws reduce mass shooting. Why not follow this country that has been successful in dealing with gun control? As to the Second Amendment people, it is all about money, power and white supremacy.

In my opinion, this problem can be solved without taking guns away from the right to bear arms. Strict regulations that require full compliance are key. There are two main resolutions that I propose:

l Banning high capacity magazines ( HCMs)

l Making it very difficult for civilians to obtain a gun.

For instance, taking into consideration an automobile owner’s requirements, whoever owns a car must comply. To possess an automobile, there are laws that abide by them. Let’s make the gun ownership requirements as of those established by the DMV related to automobile registration.

To possess a gun, here are the requirements


1. Require to disclose ownership of guns

2. Include the ownership of guns in all medical and finance forms to be filled

3. Define a database for every person that owns a gun

4. Require gun lessons before buying a gun by an instructor

5. Must pass gun safety license

6. Registration fee is $500

7. Require to pay gun tax quarterly year

8. Require gun inspection every year

9. Require mental evaluation every six months

10. In case of non-compliance, the person has his gun license revoked and subject to a penalty fee up to $5,000 for 1-5 and imprisonment for 9. 

In his decision for 2008 D.C. vs. Heller, Justice Scalia affirmed that the Second Amendment does not establish “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatsoever purpose.” (Miller, & Al n.d.). Owning a gun is a luxury or a pleasure one can afford. It is not a need. The Second Amendment is not the problem. The people that use guns are the problem. Is it possible that we prioritize the right to bear arms over the right to live in a safe environment? The answer is no. We cannot satisfy everyone. However, it is crucial that we act for the common good in taking the proper decision for the safety of our lives.

Aniece Germain


Aniece Germain is the co-founder and assistant executive director of Hope and Change for Haiti.


26 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment

Soooo many problems with this piece... where to start. How about a complete falsehood: "Also, the United States has more gun violence than any other country." This is absolutely incorrect. There are many many many countries with more gun violence than the US, including most of Africa and South America.

As to your recommendations, forget about them. Without an amendment to the Constitution you couldn't get most of these past a judge - even a liberal one. But just for fun, let's look at some of the most egregious examples...

(2) Exactly what would the purpose be for putting gun ownership boxes on finance and medical forms? Maybe you could make a case for your doctor asking (but not a requirement to ask) about firearm ownership, but financial forms. Why on earth would a loan application need ask if you own guns? Talk about an invasion of privacy.

(3) You are talking about a gun registry... that isn't going to happen, and is in fact against the law for the government to establish one.

(6) $500 for a gun license... apparently the word "infringe" is not in your vocabulary. There is no question that this would be highly unconstitutional. While democrats scream about how much a burden it is to get a state issued ID just to vote, you think that it is ok to require gun owners to pay $500 for a license?

(7) A gun tax? Are you serious? You want to tax lawful gun owners for what, to offset costs of gun violence. You know who won't pay that tax... the people committing the gun violence.

(8) Yearly gun inspection? Are you serious? First off, the logistics alone makes this impossible. Also, what they purpose for the inspection be? To make sure that it works properly, that is after all why we have vehicle inspections. 400+ million guns in this country and if you think that the government is going to inspect even 1% of those a year then you've lost your mind.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

And for the record, my right to live safely is 100% dependent on my having a firearm. You think you live in safety because you can dial 911?

Tuesday, May 14, 2019
jim smith

Re: " Indeed, the real reason why the Senate and the House of Representatives refuse to act on gun control is hidden. It is way far beyond the Second Amendment right. It is all about keeping their political power as elected officials"

It is elitist and presumptuous of you to know what they are thinking. It is more likely they just happen to agree that private citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: "the killing of innocent people and children by a gunman"

According to the CDC in 2016 there were about 14415 people murdered with firearms in the US which works out to about 39 people per day. These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 326 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 23,000 people being murdered by a firearm and about 1 person out of every 923,000 (FBI data) being murdered with a rifle which includes so called "assault rifles". Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 23,000 or 923,000 people and you will realize these events are rare. It is also estimated there are about 109 million gun owners and 20 million "assault style" weapon owners in the US which means on any given day 108,999,961 gun owners didn’t kill anyone nor did 19,999,961 "assault style" weapon owners - yet because the news media magnifies these relatively isolated and infrequent events to the level of an epidemic, the anti-gun folks answer is to restrict or take the guns away from people who harmed no one. The number of homicides with a firearm will never be zero - so if you think 1 person out of 23,000 or 923,000 is unacceptable then given the fact that deranged individuals and murderers are an intrinsic part of the human race and we currently live in a free society, what number of illegal firearm homicides would ever be acceptable to you to the point you would say “we don’t need any more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms”?

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " the United States has more gun violence than any other country"

Not true. The US ranks 16th worldwide

Re: " According to a recent report, the United States has more gun owners than any other country in the world"

Yes - and with an estimated 109 million "gun owners" with 400 million guns and billions or trillions of rounds of ammunition - if legal "gun owners" were a problem, you would know it and there would be far more than ~14000 illegal firearm homicides per year

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " continue to deny that guns in America is a problem"

You can't blame today's problems on the "guns". The first semi-automatic handgun was invented in the late 1800’s and the most popular version went into production in 1911. It is also noted the so-called evil “assault rifles” with standard capacity 30 round magazines are not new technology. A harbinger was invented in 1890 and the current versions evolved and were mass produced in the late 1940’s and have always been available to the public (note the “47” in AK-47 stands for 1947, the year the firearm went into production). As a matter of fact fully automatic versions (i.e. machine guns), which are true military grade rifles, were readily available to the general public until 1986 and background checks on firearm transfers weren’t required until 1994 - yet nobody talks about mass shootings with any version (semi-automatic or automatic) of these guns during the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s so it’s a relatively new phenomenon and logic would indicate it’s being caused by something else.

Note also that the worst mass killing in a US school occurred on May 18, 1927 in the Bath schoolhouse in Michigan where the killer used dynamite. And rather than immediately rush in an emotional tizzy to pass new laws to restrict the sale of dynamite, cooler heads prevailed and it took 43 years until October 15, 1970 when the law was changed. Up until that date anyone over 21 could walk into a hardware store or farm coop and buy dynamite and blasting caps

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " People who do not favor gun control weigh their position on the Second Amendment"

The purpose of the "Second Amendment" is clearly stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights where it says “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on the private ownership of weapons and the militia was equally matched with the Continental Army. After all, if they weren’t equally matched, it would be pretty hard to deter or prevent “misconstruction or abuse" of the government’s powers - so in reality, the citizen militia of today should have the same firearms as the current US military. Unfortunately we are no longer equally matched because we have let our gun rights be eroded by buying into this notion if we just compromise to accommodate the people who - for whatever reason - don’t like guns they will quit trying to take away our gun rights. History has shown that no matter how much we compromise, it’s never enough so we need to stop compromising.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " Australia, for example, reports showed that strict gun laws reduce mass shooting"

The homicide rate in Australia was decreasing before the 1996 "strict gun law" ban and continued to decrease at the same rate afterwards for a short period and then leveled off. If it had really made a difference it would have decreased significantly and not leveled off. In addition since the 1996 ban (during 1997 to 2010 period) the number of guns grew by 45% (back to pre-ban levels) and the population grew by 19%, and as I said the homicide rate leveled off and if it was really about guns it should have drastically increased. A logical conclusion as to why this occurred is because only law abiding citizens honored and participated in the buyback

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " act for the common good"

In 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1994 I suspect similar arguments were made for “for the common good” when more restrictive federal gun laws were passed. Since all of the regulations derived from these laws are apparently not enough, maybe you can understand the reluctance of gun owners to entertain the idea of sitting quietly and accepting a new barrage. The problem is the real agenda of the people who are leading the charge for more gun control is to ban all guns except for the government and governments (unlike individuals) hold the world record for killing people that don’t agree with them. The reality is implementing expanded background checks or banning semi-automatic rifles (like the AR) or standard capacity magazines has nothing to do with keeping the people safe - it’s about using a horrific crimes like school shootings to whip lawmakers into an emotional frenzy to goad them into quickly advancing the agenda of gun control irrespective of any facts in more incremental “progressive” steps in order to set a new baseline and move the goal posts to the point where an unscrupulous government would have the option to do what ever they please.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: "How can we find a common ground to solve the problem of guns in the country?"

You could start by enforcing the laws already on the books and insist empathetic judges and DAs quit allowing people who use or possess a gun illegally to plea bargain away the illegal firearms offense. The feds are one of the worst offenders when it comes to enforcing laws. Straw purchases and lying on the 4473 form you have to fill out for a background check to purchase a firearm is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine - yet in 2010 76142 people failed the background check, 4732 were deemed worthy of prosecution and only 62 were prosecuted. Another thing you could do since most of the gun homicides are caused by gangs or repeat offenders is to advocate for a law that would impose a mandatory death sentence on any recidivist with a violent criminal history that uses a firearm to commit a crime regardless of childhood upbringing, economic impoverishment, mental health, age, IQ, ethnicity, $ex or gender identity.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " In his decision for 2008 D.C. vs. Heller, Justice Scalia affirmed that the Second Amendment does not establish “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatsoever purpose"

Yes - and you will notice he was careful to not talk about banning any types of firearms. Anti-gunners like to interpret the statement to be a green light to ban any firearms they don’t like. Another interpretation, which is codified in existing laws, is that if you misuse a firearm or kill someone illegally you can be denied your right to own any firearms and be incarcerated or executed

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Sounds like Aniece would greatly benefit from reading the short essay, "Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?" at

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " Let’s make the gun ownership requirements as of those established by the DMV related to automobile registration"

"Automobiles" are not a Constitutional right and are not required to be registered (or insured) if their use is confined to off-road use or private property. But if you really want to treat guns like cars, I'm all for it. Guns currently require a background check for the gun most used in murder and suicide. Car purchase requires no background check for any type of car up to and including cars that can exceed the national speed limit by 3 to 4 times.

Unlike cars, you cannot buy any gun you want at any age...they are strictly regulated by type and you must be 18 to buy a gun, 21 if it's a handgun. You cannot buy a gun across state lines without going to a federally licensed dealer and paying a transfer fee at both ends. You cannot get the fastest shooting gun at all if manufactured after 1986, and can only get the fastest gun pre 1986 with additional background checks, a payment for a Tax stamp, 6-8 months of waiting, and a requirement for approval from local law enforcement...and which can be refused on a whim.

By comparison you can buy any car you wish, at any age you wish, provided you have the doesn't even have to be street legal. If you wish to take it on the road, you can do so at 16 in most states after completing a licensing requirement. That same licensing requirement to take your gun out requires that you be 21.

When you get a license to drive a car, it's valid in all 50 states, in every city. Provided you pass a minimal requirement, anyone can have a drivers license, even a felon, without having to have a reason to need it or approval from any law enforcement. When you get a license to carry a gun, it is only valid in one state and may or may not be valid in others. You cannot get a license to carry if you are a felon, nor can you get one in may issue states without having a reason.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Jim Smith

Re: " Require to disclose ownership of guns... Require gun inspection every year... Define a database for every person that owns a gun "

Why? Guns don't shoot anyone by themselves. The only rational reason to do these things is to enable future confiscation. It also is noted that criminals would be exempt from any of these requirements because of the Haynes vs US SCOTUS decision in 1968.

Re: " Require gun lessons before buying a gun by an instructor"

Learning how to use a gun takes about 10 minutes. Learning how to use it effectively takes a lot of practice. Most concealed carry classes take several hours and the reason is to cover all the laws and issues that can get you in trouble if you are not aware of them.

Re: " Must pass gun safety license"

There are 4 basic rules of gun safety and if everyone followed them, there would be no accidental shootings

Re: "Registration fee is $500...Require to pay gun tax quarterly yea"

This is analogous to a tax on a Constitutional right - like a poll tax that has been ruled unconstitutional. Unfortunately the feckless SCOTUS refuses to treat the Second Amendment like the rest of the Constitution but these proposals would likely force them to do it.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " In case of non-compliance"

Laws and licensing only work for people that obey them and the problem you have is that in 2016 (for example) there were 667300 violent criminals in state prisons and 20900 in federal prisons. This works out to a total of 688200 or about 0.214% of the US population which means that about 1 out of every 466 people in the US that have been caught have no qualms about ignoring whatever laws you pass and killing or injuring someone and the gun is often their tool of choice. So the bottom line is (1) The human race produces a few bad individuals prone to violence who just refuse to play by whatever rules you promulgate and until you find some way to identify these individuals and the courage to permanently eliminate them from society, innocent people are going to be killed (2) Because of these bad individuals, bad things happen every day to people who through no fault of their own were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Criminals will always have guns if they want them. If worst comes to worst they will be smuggled into the US from Mexico inside a bale of marijuana and sold on the black market.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " Require mental evaluation every six months"

There are 2 problems with this. First, mental health issues aren’t necessarily present at the time of an evaluation and lots of mentally ill people “present well” - i.e. they are good at hiding their true personality unless it is inadvertently revealed in a psychotic break or crisis situation. The second problem is there are no objective criteria for a mental health evaluation. As is evidenced in court trials, you often have “experts” who disagree and reach completely different conclusions. When this ambiguity is married to regulations written by unaccountable bureaucrats and used by people who are trying to ban all guns from private citizens it would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm

Wednesday, May 15, 2019
jim smith

Re: " Is it possible that we prioritize the right to bear arms over the right to live in a safe environment?"

No. People who use a firearm illegally can be incarcerated or executed - and note that the SCOTUS has ruled (Castle Rock vs Gonzales 2005) the police have no legal obligation to protect you in a "safe environment"

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin..

Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

Deceptive Transformation: The Truth of Soviet Influence in America and Gun Control...The idea of using mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin, and the social sciences, or the studying of human behavior has its roots in early twentieth century Russia when Ivan Pavlov developed his "classical conditioning" theories.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

There is no such thing as "gun violence". This is a focus-group-driven buzzword and talking point to create an imaginary bogeyman as the main anti 2nd Amendment propaganda tool. There are PEOPLE who commit violence with guns, but there are many more people who commit violence without them.

And, since the term "gun violence" is a catchword/cliche, the title suggests an unattainable goal. People have been robbing and killing other people, using the weapons of the day, since the beginning of man on this planet, which identifies the real issue - controlling criminal impulses in humans, not the otherwise legal instruments they use to commit crimes.

Anyone who doesn't realize and/or acknowledge this isn't thinking, s/he is 'feeling', and our liberty cannot depend upon what anybody 'feels'.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Marxists who infect our government plus the media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

No matter what any politician or hard-left mainstream media tells you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family.

Ask the six million J ews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the N azi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.

American Thinker

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

And yet not one word or explanation about how to stop children from being shot and killed in school by an armed boy/man. That is the real problem that hasn't been answered. Just reasons why the gun isn't the problem. But the gun is the murder weapon each and every time. There is zero ways to get around that 1 fact.

Thursday, May 16, 2019
Jim Smith


Re: " But the gun is the murder weapon each and every time"

So far that's true, but it's not for lack of trying. Even if all the guns could be banned, there are plenty of other methods available to kill a lot of people thanks to the internet - i.e things like pipe bombs (San Bernardino, pressure cooker bombs (Boston), propane tank bombs (Columbine High School), truck bombs (Oklahoma City), exotic battery bombs (Austin, TX), Molotov cocktails (Arapahoe High School), gasoline cans and a match (Happy Land fire on 3/25/90), heavy truck crashing in to a crowd of people (Nice, France), home made flame throwers made from plumbing parts and gasoline (nowhere - yet) and any pressure vessel filled with shrapnel and gun powder manufactured the same way it has been since the 6th century that will momentarily confine an explosive pressure wave.

Thursday, May 16, 2019
Jim Smith


Re: " And yet not one word or explanation about how to stop children from being shot"

These current problems with school shootings didn't seem to exist in the 50's and 60's when firearms were less regulated and more prolific - so what changed? One change was prior to the late 1960's parents, and to a lesser extent, teachers, were free to discipline their kids pretty much any way they wanted. It was not unusual for the school assistant principle to spank misbehaving kids with a paddle or have disruptive kids reprimanded in class or have them stand in a corner by themselves in the classroom or in a hallway facing a wall in view of their peers. On the home front, punishments, which could be more severe, lead to the rise of interventions by social services. Once kids realized they could bring the wrath of the government down upon anyone (parents or school) who disciplined them, efforts to punish bad behavior degenerated into cajoling and kids acknowledgement of and respect for authority vanished. Positive reinforcement over the years has now allowed this situation to morph into where even differences of opinion are considered excessive punishments to the point kids demand (and get) "safe spaces". I don't pretend to know if this is the only cause of today's problems - but it does address the heart of the problem, which is lack of tolerance and respect for other people and authority.

Another change was the ACLU"s effective lawsuit against mental health hospitals in 1972 that mandated expensive reforms that eventually forced several to close down. Maybe the reforms were justified but the end result was an increased reliance on psychotropic drugs to be self medicated by potential patients who were turned loose on the streets

Thursday, May 16, 2019
jim smith


Re: "how to stop children from being shot and killed in school"

Arming volunteer teachers and administrators as first-line defenders is probably the only near term solution that makes sense. Schools have many entrances and lots of activities and they can't all be monitored continuously at a reasonable cost - especially when there are over 100000 schools in the US - so access control is not feasible and even if it is, it does not guarantee security. Also school shootings are rare so there is a danger of boredom and complacency with dedicated guards. Teachers, administrators and support personnel have another main job to combat boredom and know the layout of the school and the students - especially those students likely to cause trouble. They will also be the first on the scene and the only people on the scene with that knowledge. As far as them getting shot by the police, those issues can be worked out with de-escalation codewords and in many cases the incident will probably be over before the police or SWAT teams are on site. The key here is these "volunteers" need to be willing, discrete, trained, carry concealed firearms on their person and their identity has to be unknown - like federal marshals on airplanes. Once their identity is exposed they are like school resource officers. Potential killers know who they are and if the killer(s) are a student at the school, they probably know where they are and they will either be avoided during an incident or be the first person shot and their firearm will be taken. Also, even if the schools don't have armed, undercover teachers or other support personnel, potential killers don't know that and while it may not stop them, it will certainly factor into their intentions.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

The letter writer would heavily tax a constitutional right. She also fails to acknowledge that every week in this country, a homeowner uses a gun to protect his/her property/life. In fact, it happens everyday. I am one of those lawful gun owners who protected himself with a gun. The police are minutes away when seconds count, even our great WPD.

The author points to Australia but fails to understand that there are no such places in Australia like war torn Chicago and many dozens of other cities in the US that are filled with illegal gun users who will not give up their guns even at gunpoint.

In short, the author is not rational or not educated enough to reason through her own thoughts.

Friday, May 17, 2019

Should right to own a gun outweigh right to live safely?

Enough people here have spoken about the specifics on firearms, but this is more.

Sorry Aniece Life is not safe. No matter how many rules and regulations the Left wishes to impose.

The beauty of the U.S. is you are free to fail or succeed, restricting freedoms is a step to restricting innovation and thought. Leading to a tyranny. Is that extreme? The last century proved it wasn't.

Keep in mind ALL Federal and State regulation are enforced with the barrel of a gun. The Second Amendment was about the Citizens keeping control of our Republic. After all when you put all your rules and regulations into effect how will you enforce them?

Friday, May 24, 2019