07.24.2014  |   | Subscribe  | Contact us

All News & Blogs

E-mail Alerts

Anti-gun 'propaganda' deserves a response


Date published: 1/21/2013

Anti-gun 'propaganda' deserves a response

I take extreme exception to William Dowling's propaganda on the front of Sunday's Viewpoints page ["'God-given' arms absolutes must go," Jan. 13], from the tacky photo showing rifle ammunition next to a pistol, to the bold lettered opening rant, and all the way through to his belief that he is qualified to interpret the text of the Constitution more than our Supreme Court. The court has already decided what "the people" means.

Canada does not have gun-ownership rights. Having lived in Canada as a Marine, I know that they do not have a constitution that protects their rights like we do.

Dowling goes on a tangent like the rest of the left, trying to compare arms to ordnance by saying he should have the right to build bombs under the same constitutional blanket that permits guns. Really?

When the Founding Fathers framed the Constitution, ordnance existed and it was not included in the amendment along with "arms." Why? Maybe because the employment of ordnance generally requires more than one person, but bearing arms is a function of the individual. The courts seem to agree.

I do share some of Dowling's concerns in these areas: what information is available to government when conducting a background check and why we don't enforce the laws we already have.

Even Paul Krugman, no right-winger, concedes that we are safer today than we have ever been. What the audience fails to realize is that today's technology and speed of information dissemination, compounded by those who spin and exploit information, make it easy to think a problem is far worse than it is.

William Hanrahan

Stafford