|
Something
to Think About
A Moral
Obscenity
by Gordon Francis Corbett
Some people say that our young people have too
much "access to firearms." Others proclaim that the
Second Amendment only assures us the right to have
a militia "well-regulated" by Washington.
Our youngsters' ability to obtain firearms is
not a problem. My father taught me to shoot when I
was eight years old. I competed on a rifle team in
one of the two high schools I attended, and on my
university's rifle team as well. None of us
shooters committed the least act of violence.
Why? Our parents had taught us right from wrong,
and made certain that we understood.
What about the argument concerning the Second
Amendment's phrase, "A well-regulated militia?"
"Well-regulated" meant "proficient," or
"well-drilled." "Militia" means "unorganized
militia": everyone from eighteen to forty-five
years of age. Moreover, I doubt that the Founding
Fathers wanted Washington to "regulate" our
militias so that we could shoot a tyrannical
government's soldiers properly.
Strip the anti-gunners' arguments of their
factual errors and phony reasoning, and what
remains is a desire to disarm everyone except the
government. If pressed, they say that the Second
Amendment is obsolete and should be ignored or
repealed.
Many of these people are pacifists. They believe
that no human being should ever hurt another, and
because they know that thousands of Americans are
shot to death every year, they want to forbid our
owning firearms.
Baloney. Everyone has a right not to be injured
or killed; but, an attacking criminal forfeits that
right, allowing his morally intact victim to defend
himself. That is why peaceable citizens arm
themselves, and why criminals almost never attack
victims known to be armed.
The disarmament of individuals, or of nations,
is a moral obscenity. We should distrust the
judgment of anyone who recommends either.
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|