The letter I should have responded to

I wrote a short letter to the Beloit Daily News wondering if the Republicans raised as much hell when people like Tammy Gay Baldwin got gerrymandered districts - she has Madison and Beloit, but not Janesville - as the Demonrats are raising now that the GOP has the whip hand. Then I read this:

‘Guns not equal to more safety’

Published: Friday, July 8, 2011 11:38 PM CDT

If it were not so tragic, the recently enacted gun legislation would be comic. It is hard to imagine any proposal more misdirected or out of touch with reality than this. This legislation defies common sense.

Most obviously, it is at odds with itself, means against ends. We can no more make ourselves safer and more secure by multiplying the guns at our disposal than we can reach Chicago by driving north on I-90. To proliferate firearms among a diverse people living in close proximity and experiencing economic stress will only heighten our anxiety and invite violence.

The legislation is contrary to our nation’s heritage. The focus in these United States has always been on the security of a free people. We have turned toward each other and community structures to insure our safety. To turn now to self-defense and dependence on instruments of aggression will only tear the fabric of the nation. And it will make unmistakable a priority of property over persons.

And this legislation makes a mockery of the Constitution which is often quoted as its warrant. What the Constitution guarantees is much more limited and specific: The maintenance of the militia necessary for the security of a free state at that time. These conditions no longer exist in our time. To suggest a constitutional warrant for this legislation is either deliberate distortion or careless reading. Our nation’s future requires both greater maturity and greater integrity.

Edward M. Esler
Beloit
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, Mr. Esler, I guess I'll just have to respond here.


First off, who said anything about "multiplying guns"? Not only is this an impossible mathematical operation, the new concealed carry law says nothing about increasing the number of guns on the street. As a front page story in the BDN today shows, the bad guys are already out there and armed, regardless of all the laws "preventing" gun violence. Denying the law-abiding parity in this arms race does nothing to prevent more violence, and as has been shown by the experience of the huge majority of states with concealed carry laws, allowing citizens the option of self-defense actually reduces violent crime.

Obviously, you flunked civics, or you have no capability of reading and comprehending what you read, if you think that our nation's heritage does not include self-reliance, self-defense, and taking responsibility for one's actions.

Having access to a tool of self-defense does not make one dependent on it, any more than having a fire extinguisher prevents one from calling the fire department.

Lastly, you obviously have never read the Constitution, in particular the Second Amendment. The "militia" clause is a preamble, not a justification or a requirement. Besides, the "militia" mentioned there was every able-bodied man in the community - NOT the National Guard, which did not then exist. Today, it would be every law-abiding adult.

If anything, the conditions today are more dangerous to the people living in large cities than they were for early Americans, who only had to worry about abuses by the British colonial government and possible Indian raids - they had little in the way of the street crime we now have, nor did they have to deal with an out-of-control federal government increasingly contemptuous of the people they are sworn to serve. If anything, the conditions that prompted the Second Amendment are more prevalent today than they were in the 18th Century.