It appears that Jim Scharnagel still doesn’t understand the history of this country or what our Constitution and Bill of Rights are all about. In his recent letter, he left out possibly the most important reason for maintaining an armed citizenry, namely protection from an oppressive government.
His statement “Where did the idea emerge that gun control would limit the purchase and possession of guns, etc.” is about as ridiculous as you can get. Does he not understand what the word “control” means? Pelosi, Feinstein and Schumer’s idea of control go a great deal further than he implies. If these people who are leading the way on gun control are successful, the majority of guns owned by the public will be illegal. Under current “gun control” laws in our biggest cities, it is almost impossible for the average person to own and use a gun. Why is it then that crime rates there are significantly higher than in cities and areas where gun control is minimal?
One of the issues being pushed is gun registration, which generally follows intensive background checks. In every country where registration has been established, gun confiscation at some level has followed. England and Australia are two recent examples in which gun confiscation followed registration. Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia and a number of other countries are more extreme examples in which thousands of residents were murdered after confiscation of their guns.
Jim sarcastically refers to people in a “frenzy” of buying guns and ammunition! Wonder why that is? Is it possible that they are afraid that an “oppressive government” is going to make it difficult or even impossible to purchase or obtain a firearm? I guess it’s only a “frenzy” when private citizens purchase larger than normal amounts of guns and ammo, but not when our Home Security force buys enough guns and ammo, including hollow-point ammo equal to that needed by our Army for 30 years operation! Maybe they feel they will need those hollow points when they come to get my guns.
I always thought that Jim had a logical reasonable approach to most situations, but his depiction of terrorists, criminals and mentally ill children obtaining their weapons from “hoarding” of guns by citizens is about as far out as you can get. And where does his logic come from that I need to be restricted to seven rounds in my weapons? Am I supposed to tell two or three thugs with illegal automatic weapons and 30-round magazines breaking in to my house that they are not being fair because I only have seven rounds without reloading?
There are far more instances of people using guns to protect themselves or others from harm than instances of abuse by gun-wielding nuts. For some reason or other, our news media doesn’t seem to attach equal importance to the positive aspects of gun ownership, where lives are routinely saved by the use of those guns, than they do when some pervert goes on a destructive rampage.
Monte E. Seehorn