pro-2A MSM editorial!

[Rocketman56]

A wonderfully written editorial in a newspaper in the state of CT.

Of course, the horrible Pettit "incident" spawned it, but maybe
some of the other fence sitters in that state will begin to see the true light
of the 2nd Amendment..  Enjoy..

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18660461&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=569380&rfi=8

A quote I heard in a Youtube video about the coffee-table book "Armed America"..
           
Quote

The 2nd Amendment is the Reset Button of the Constitution.

There is another thread on this on THR, but I didn't see one here..
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=293977

Enjoy!
Steve

Article Text...

Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right
By Keith C. Burris
08/03/2007

In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why?

There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.

Why not a more stringent "three strikes and you're out" law in this state? Connecticut's version is so weak that it's more like "30 strikes and we'll think about it while you strike again."

Why not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violent offenders? Get them off the streets. It's been proposed many times. Most people agree it should be done. It never happens.

Can't we better monitor the probation process?

Can't we do a better job of predicting -- figuring out which non-violent criminals are about to turn violent?

Are home alarms really effective?

How about dogs?

But somehow all of these ideas pale before the barbarity of this particular crime.

That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?

Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.

Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?

Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.

Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?

I think the answer is yes.

And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.

I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.

Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?

And whereas the reform of the criminal justice system along some of the lines suggested above (a real "three strikes" law and faster trials for violent offenders) would not have saved the lives of Jennifer, and Hayley, and Michaela Petit, a gun might have.

I don't say it would have.

I say it might have.

Had Dr. William Petit had access to a gun and known how to use it, he might have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armed with only an air gun and ropes.

Moreover, the three victims here were women.

What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was forced to take one captor to the bank to fetch him money?

It's worth thinking about.

Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.

And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.

A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."

They are.

And they are right.

Mind you, we are talking about arming people who are trained and know how to use a weapon.

No one should have a gun who has not been trained.

Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun. (The National Rifle Association maintains an extensive national network of programs in firearms training and education.)

And, obviously, no one would be forced to own a gun.

A second caveat: Encouraging citizens to arm themselves is no "answer" to crimes like the Petit murders.

An "answer" does not exist.

But it is one of several remedies when we are faced with palpable evil.

All possible remedies should be on the table:

-- Various reforms of the justice system, like a real three-strike-law for predatory offenders.

-- Better psychological treatment for troubled youth.

-- Religious training, in both love and self-restraint, especially when people are young.

-- Prison programs that both retain the hard core and educate the educable.

-- More and better home alarm systems.

-- More cops visible in more neighborhoods.

-- Dobermans.

All of these approaches have merit.

So does self-defense.

None of these options "fix" a society that can produce human beings who torture and kill the defenseless for sport.

No one step or program can plug every hole in America's justice system, or its soul.

But there are times when a gun in the hands of a potential victim may save a life.

Let's admit -- since the murderers, and druggies, and psychos, and thieves already have guns -- that arming the peaceful, law-abiding, decent, and productive people, whether in a school, or a private home, or on the way to a parked car, is an option that also has merit.

--------

Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer.[\quote]

[Monkeyleg]

Wow! That's something that you would never read in a newspaper in Milwaukee.

An editor who gets it. Amazing.

[Standing Wolf]

A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."
They are.
And they are right.
Mind you, we are talking about arming people who are trained and know how to use a weapon.
No one should have a gun who has not been trained.

1. People who don't know paragraphs from sentences from sentence fragments should watch television instead of trying to masquerade as writers.

2. Only a complete nitwit would argue in favor of the Second Amendment while arguing for training requirements before being able to exercise one's Second Amendment civil rights.

3. Is this individual going to advocate mandatory so-called "training" before being granted permission to vote? If not, he should sit down, shut up, and actually read a copy of the Constitution.

[Perd Hapley]

2. Only a complete nitwit would argue in favor of the Second Amendment while arguing for training requirements before being able to exercise one's Second Amendment civil rights.

You might be reading too much into what he said.  He said untrained people should not be armed.  He didn't say the law should enforce that.

[Rocketman56]

Standing Wolf:

I, too, had some issues with the editorial, but when you consider what is normally
spewed out as editorials with regard to the 2nd Amendment, it's light years in a new
direction..

As far as the format, I read it as Speaker's Notes..  which, in fact, it may have been,
we simply don't know..

As you mentioned, the discussion of training was a bit troubling.

Personally, as with ANY tool, training should be obtained by the individual who is using the tool. It should not be mandated, but a matter of personal responsibility which, unfortunately, our society of late has NOT fostered. You get the best training you can for the tool, so you can use it most
efficiently and safely..

Personal responsibility is what I consider one of the biggest issues in today's society that needs to be addressed.. I strive to install this in my children/grandchildren but the local school system doesn't help encourage, principally because they have their own agenda... Let's not go any further with that tonight..

Regards,
Steve

[grampster]

It is very unusual to have someone in the MSM writing positive things about guns or actually expressing the idea that each of us is responsible for our own well being.

I sent the fellow and e-mail:

Mr. Burris,

I read your August 3 editorial.  A link was posted on a favorite web site of mine.  I must say I was pleased to see your courageous, truthful and insightful comments.
I'm 64 years old, a former law enforcement officer, recently retired from my 2nd career in sales.  I have a wife, children and grandchildren and extended family.  I live in Michigan.  I've owned firearms since I was a youth.  I have hunted wild game, but have mostly lost the desire to do so anymore.  Much of my hunting grounds are now neighborhoods.  I might take another trip to S. Dakota to shoot some pheasants once more, though, before I pass on.  I have firearms; both long guns and pistols and revolvers.  Some I keep and carry for personal protection.  I like to shoot all of them, and I do.  It's actually fun trying to maintain my shooting skills.    My neighbors do not live in fear and trembling of me.  Probably because most of them also own firearms for a variety of reasons and those who do not, are in no way intimidated by us because we are all just regular peace loving Americans.  Normal folks.

I was trained up by my father, who, when he came home from WWII, decided that he'd had enough with hunting with firearms due to his war experiences.  He won the Bronze Star and was a POW in Europe.  He fished though , till he was 90.

He did believe it was important to teach my brother and I how to shoot, take care of and be safe with firearms.  We were trained in the Four Rules.  We kept firearms in the house for our safety.  I still have his old Ranger 20 gauge and his Remington bolt action .22 LR target rifle.

Dad recognized the value of self defense.  Both of those firearms were kept available in the house through my childhood.  My brother and I were never in any danger from them because we understood them and knew what they were for and how to use them.
My dad also was a member of the NRA, as am I; a Life Member.  Dad said many times that the NRA trained up most American youth in the Manual of Arms and shooting sports to the point that he felt we were superior soldiers vs the Germans (in his case) and Japanese.  Unfortunately, the Left has demonized the NRA, one of, if not the best of all of our American institutions.  Most people who are opposed to the NRA don't even understand their value to youth and our country.  Sad.

Well anyway, I'd like to thank you for a well written, thoughtful article.  Too bad we don't have more media folks today that are willing to research, think about an issue, and then write the truth rather than the easily regurgitated  propaganda that is taken for news or editorials today.

Cordially,

 

[RevDisk]

2. Only a complete nitwit would argue in favor of the Second Amendment while arguing for training requirements before being able to exercise one's Second Amendment civil rights.

3. Is this individual going to advocate mandatory so-called "training" before being granted permission to vote? If not, he should sit down, shut up, and actually read a copy of the Constitution.

I'm afraid I have to agree with fistful.  He may or may not be advocating manditory training prior to firearm ownership.  But irregardless, it's a relatively minor point in an overall excellent article.  No need to hop on the gentleman with both boots for one idea that is probably not allowed under the Constitution.  One boot will be perfectly sufficient.   

I personally agree with the idea that a person should thoroughly train with a firearm before owning one.  I do not believe it should be manditory, of course, but I do believe it's a very wise idea.  If nothing else, a person that is considering buying a firearm for the first time with no previous experience should try a few first to learn their comfort level.

[Tallpine]

irregardless

Watch out!  The Rabbi is gonna getcha 

[Perd Hapley]

I'm afraid I have to agree with fistful.

Don't be afraid.