Rights of gun owners
Upon reading Shawn Vestal’s March 22 lead, “Statistics are poor ammo in debate about guns,” I thought for a fleeting moment there might be a thoughtful, rational discussion forthcoming. Alas, the article devolved into a diatribe using the usual cherry-picking, partisan studies, strategic omissions and slanted analysis that brings to mind the old adage “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
Rather than recite the factual, readily available information on the crime vs. self-defense topic, I’ll reflect on the most basic issue as it applies to both Vestal’s unlimited type space and the word-poor, once-a-month contributor.
Vestal has natural speech rights and a willing employer to publish his opinions. These same natural rights extend to those who choose to bear common arms in defense against enemies, foreign and domestic. Both rights are acknowledged and codified in our Constitution, hence the word “inalienable.”
No revisionist history, disingenuous arguments about punctuation, or dishonest or partisan magistrate alters the true nature of these rights. There exists voluminous writings regarding the reasoning and debate leading to the ratification of the Second Amendment.
Can Vestal name a single quotable founder, in full context, who advocated against ratification, openly desiring a disarmed and neutered citizenry?