Letters to the Editor

National Guard does not ensure liberty

To the Daily:

The Daily editorial ("Right to Bear Arms?" 9/22/99) is an attack on the Bill of Rights and the very foundations of our country and our beliefs. With no proof, merely overused rhetoric, the Daily only besmirches its pretense as a legitimate voice of the students.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is not for the people to bear arms in a setting controlled by the government, as is stated in your editorial, but the exact opposite. The Second Amendment provides for a check on the power of the government and the army by the people. If the government controls this check on their own power, then there is in fact nothing impeding any chosen action of the government. The National Guard cannot be considered the "well regulated militia," as they are dependant upon the government for their supply of weapons, their training facilities, their instructors and nearly every other facet of their existence as a coherent unit.

The editorial states that the National Guard "is still composed of civilians who the government trusts to bear arms." It is not those that the government trusts who the founding fathers wanted to make up this safeguard against governmental tyranny, but rather those who the government does not trust. If the colonial militias were made up of those colonists trusted by the British Crown, instead of those who the Crown distrusted and sought to arrest, the American Revolution could never have happened.

In regards to the supposed benefits of the elimination of private gun ownership in other countries, the editorial asserts the benefits, yet offers no proof, no government studies, reports or other evidence that your claims are true, other than a vague statement about a UN study. The editorial points out that other countries consider our gun control laws "laughable." The Daily seems to have forgotten, however, that these are the same countries who laughed at the idea of an independent, democratic nation, where the people controlled the government, rather than the government controlling the people. Yet this idea was so successful that since its inception it has been the model on which these same developed countries have based their new governments.

While incidents such as Columbine are indeed tragic, they are not preventable by the banning of weapons. The weapons that were used in this incident were obtained illegally, as are over 75 percent of guns used in crimes. Criminals will have guns no matter what the law. The Daily's response is that there are other ways to defend oneself. How? If an armed intruder has a gun, are you expected to defend yourself with rhetoric on the dangers of guns?

Finally, the Second Amendment does provide for private firearm ownership, as it must. If it does not, then how is the formation of the "well-regulated Militia" to be formed? Does the Daily deny that such a body is necessary to the security of a free State? If so, leave the country, you do not believe in the Constitution or the ideas behind it. If not, then your entire line of reasoning and logic is not only convoluted, but tragically flawed. I beg you to keep in mind the old adage: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Jason Bourne

LSA junior

Federalist Papers indicate purpose of Second Amendment

To the Daily:

The editorial ("Right to bear arms?" 9/22/99) is the best I've read on this topic. I congratulate you on your logic and on your recomendation. It is surprising to me that other people with this point of view do not reference and quote from "The Federalist Papers" more often. My reading of the Papers tells me that the founding fathers feared a standing army and wrote the Second Amendment to facilitate militias. The Second Amendment is unusual in form, but clear.

Even if it wasn't clear, times have changed. We don't have 10 million people living on farms in our country, but have 270 million living mostly close together in cities. And we don't have only single shot musket rifles now. Unfortunately, as long as political campaigns are financed by our "bribe" system as they are now, we will not get rid of guns. Thank you again for your ideas.

G.E. Pavlik

University alumnus

Editorial's rationale leads to absurd conclusions

To the Daily:

The editorial ("Right to bear arms?" 9/22/99) was poorly investigated and an even more poorly defended argument. I've never seen a reliable publication publish such rubbish on an important issue.

The editorial clearly acknowledged the original reason and interpretation of the Second Amendment; it exists to provide the citizens of the United States a means to revolt against an oppressive government. It then proceeded to claim that the National Guard is a suitable replacement for private militias to meet that purpose. The fundamental point it is failing to grasp is that the National Guard is still a government-controlled organization. If the citizens of the United States were to begin a revolt, the National Guard would be useless to those who are driving the revolt, and will instead be mobilized by the state and federal governments to suppress the revolt.

The editorial also states that "Hunting and target shooting are popular sports, attracting many responsible gun owners. But the safety of the majority should not be compromised by a pastime. The government should not allow guns simply to preserve hunting." Was the entire editorial staff born and raised in some metropolitan area where it took eight hours to get to the nearest woodlands? Hunting is a way of life for many, many people in rural areas. When you look at the demographics in states like Maine, New Hampshire, Montana and others, you'll find that hunting is a part of people's lives. It allows them to earn money, to protect their crops from varmints and other animals and to gather food for eating. If the Daily believes that hunting is purely a "pastime," it's deluding itself, and bringing its readers with it.

The editorial also raised the figure of healthcare expenditures for firearm related injuries. Try looking at the figures for automobile accidents. Car accidents are the number one cause of death for the 15-24-year-old age group, which is also the age group with the highest incidence of firearm homicide. Take a look at http://www.traumafdn.org/injuries/10male25.html for more information. Now, according to the rationale of the editorial, we should ban all motorvehicles, and make everyone ride a bicycle.

Finally, the editorial claims that one of the Daily's primary reasons for writing it was the shooting in Columbine, Colo. The problem is that a ban against guns simply wouldn't have helped at all in that situation. Even if, by some magical feat, all firearms were eliminated from the hands of Americans, those students would still have massacred their classmates. Building bombs is a simple and easy task for any person with basic chemistry knowledge and access to a library. Had those students used explosives instead of firearms, it's likely that the death toll would have been much, much higher. Imagine if there were bombs placed up the sides of a staircase leading to the front door of the school, or along the sides of a hallway. When a large number of students would be leaving, they would have been blown to bits by high explosive charges.

So, what's the solution? Ban all combustible liquids! No sale of metal pipe to people under 25 years of age! Lighters and matches are no longer permitted!

Hopefully, the Daily will see the absurdity of this argument. The Daily's editorial staff has used the editorial page as an open venue to spread their own political agenda and useless rhetoric to a large audience. What the Daily should be advocating is the concept of tolerance and acceptance of others, because without that, violence will always be a part of society.

Andrew Knutson

LSA sophomore

09-24-99