Letterwerks Sign City
 
VBC Video
"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Monday, April 21st, 2014
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
 

78


Do you think that chain stores in small communities undermine the sales of locally owned retailers?







View Results
Ody's Country Meats

Gun free zones?


By Col. Stan Gudmundson

Fri, Jan 4th, 2013
Posted in All Commentary

By Stan Gudmundson

Natural rights are basic rights that government cannot rightly take away from us. One of the most fundamental rights we have as citizens is the freedom to protect ourselves from being physically harmed by someone else. It is a natural right that all of us as individuals have.

Most natural rights are enumerated in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. These include, as most know, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on. One amendment speaks to the right to bear arms.

Much is made of the way the constitution’s second amendment is written. But that is not really the issue. The real issue is that our right to protect ourselves is a fundamental right irrespective of what the constitution says, and irrespective of what any laws or judicial decisions have been made pertaining to the right to protect ourselves.

As we have organized our society, we have decided that individuals will no longer have the option of enforcing justice as each of us sees fit. We turn that over to one of the legitimate functions of government. That is why we have laws, law enforcement agencies, courts, prisons, and all of the rest.

In large measure we also turn the functions of protection over to government. There is however, one thing that law enforcement cannot do for us. That is, it cannot always and everywhere protect each of us all of the time. And we cannot expect it to.

Certainly our laws and law enforcement agencies and personnel do prevent some crimes. However, much of the work they do in protecting our people and property has to do with solving crimes already committed.

Therefore we as individuals have not given up the right to self protection. It is fundamental and basic. The idea that government can solve the unsolvable problem of ensuring each of us is always protected by taking away guns is a ridiculous fantasy. Moreover, the idea that confiscation of guns can reduce crime cannot be supported by any empirical evidence anywhere in the world.

There are some human beings whose characters are deeply flawed. We will never, ever solve that problem. On the day of terrible killings in Connecticut, the Drudge Report had a report about a man in China who slashed more than 20 children. This is far from the first time that an incident like this has occurred there.

These kinds of things happen everywhere in the world as mass murders in China, England, Norway, and Germany, for example, reveal. By the way, the incident that killed the most school children in the United States occurred early in the 20th century. They were killed with dynamite.

What troubles me most is the arrogant belief of the elites that we cannot be trusted. Those who do not trust our country’s people constantly take advantage of any tragedy to try take away our means of self defense. They think it is up to them to make worse what cannot be fixed.

I also find it really rich listening to folks who live in places where they are not nor will they ever be in any danger of physical harm. Moreover, they will never experience the fear and terror of being assaulted. But they think they can tell others who live in dangerous environments that they we wish to make it even more dangerous for them by taking away their ability to protect themselves.

I briefly lived for a time in the worst part of Minneapolis. There is nothing so terrifying as being awaken by someone who has broken into your apartment. Other than my fists, I was totally defenseless and scared to death. Fortunately I escaped harm, but it left a deep impression. We do have an absolute prerogative to defend ourselves and our families.

There is a common theme in the round of deadly mass killings in the United States. Most if not all of these murders occurred in “gun free zones.” A fat lot of good that stipulation did. Why the these evil monsters target children is impossible to imagine but certainly children are largely defenseless. And we place them in facilities where there are no other defenses.

In the case of schools, every single school board in the country ought to authorize its teachers and staff to carry concealed weapons whenever and wherever they are on school grounds. If lovely little loony tunes knows that someone will be shooting back at him within seconds of an assault on a school, he will likely not pursue his macabre fantasy.

That’s not what will happen of course. The left will try to get the rest of us to place the blame where it doesn’t belong and try to solve the problem by attempting to eliminate a fundamental natural right.

That is the right to protect ourselves. With what is effective, and what is effective is guns. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles. Their effectiveness is due to the threat of or circumstance where a projectile is forced out of a tube at a high enough velocity to make a mess of flesh and bone. And it doesn’t matter one way or another if an overwrought liberal thinks a gun looks funny.

Comments:







Your comment submission is also an acknowledgement that this information may be reprinted in other formats such as the newspaper.



526

12:23:35, Jan 8th 2013

dixiechicdana says:
Thank you Sir for so eloquently saying what we have all been "trying" to tell people who would have us give up our rights.


534

3:01:52, Jan 9th 2013

Ihavea Brain says:
Attention Colonel: It appears that you're missing the point when it comes to guns. Why in heaven's name would any civilian need military-style assault weapons to defend him or herself under the parameters of the second amendment? Can you honestly say that you or any American needs a high-powered assault weapon with 100 rounds in the chamber to make it through the day in America? Give me a break. And can you honestly say that this style of weaponry is needed by a hunter or sportsman? Let's get real. The style of gun that was used in Connecticut was meant for one thing--taking out as many human beings as possible, as quicly as possible. Most fair-minded Americans that are in favor of making changes to gun control legislation aren't out to ban ALL guns. Let's just be reasonable and get rid of these super high-powered assault weapons that are only meant for mass slaughter and carnage. And give me a break about wanting school employees to be carrying and concealing. I am an educator, and the day that I'm asked to do that will be the last day of my career in education. Your letter is short-sighted and quite frankly asinine.


546

1:27:01, Jan 10th 2013

Kim Wentworth says:
Ihavea Brain-
Asinine, is the mere thought of an educator being so liberal, oh wait, that is asinine of me to think that, sorry. I don't know how one gets to believe your position, but i guess when a liberal has exhausted all other options, of having facts not going along with his/her belief then it is time to play the one last trump card in your deck. The cry "we have to do it for the children". How is it you know or think you know what we need, want, or have a right to when it comes to the ownership of guns? That would be like me telling you how much you really need of the 1st amendment. The 2nd amendment having to do with trap shooting, hunting, or even personnal protection is all secondary to one fact. The 2nd Amendment protects the citizens against tyranny. As an educator i am assuming your ability to read. In the course of World history many times there have been examples of governments becoming say..out of touch, Hitler being one of the first that comes to mind. When a person or group of people want to take over the rest of a country the first step that has always been taken was to take away the publics guns. I will immediately change my position to agree with you the first time i see a gun kill a person.


549

6:59:48, Jan 11th 2013

Ihavea Brain says:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Kim. Unfortunately, you have missed my point. No, I'm actually not an extreme liberal. I even voted for Mitt Romney last fall. Surprised? Don't be. There are plenty of moderate people around that are agreeable to things such as an assault weapons ban. It never ceases to amaze me that when a discussion about gun control comes up some people immediately ASSUME that this means folks are out to ban all guns and take away ALL the rights granted under the 2nd Amendment. This is simply an over-reaction. The type of weaponry used in Conneticut only belongs in the hands of a trained soldier or possibly a law enforcement professional. These huge clips that are able to hold dozens and dozens of rounds are just not needed by any of the general public. Let's be reasonable about this. Let's keep guns legal. Let's get rid of super high-powered assault weapons and gynormous clips. There's no need for these. Let's compromise. Let's be reasonable.


591

1:10:47, Jan 15th 2013

Kim Wentworth says:
Ihavea Brain- Your response while typical, made me laugh just the same. As an educator what kind of word is gynormous? What exactly is a "super high- powered assult weapon". Voting for a person like Mitt Romney does not remove the liberal tag from you. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, or Bill of Rights, are not up for compromise sir. The argument for smaller clips is an exact example of liberal thinking. Whether one has a fifty round clip or ten clips with five rounds, in a gun free zone the number of victums is at least going to be the same, probably higher as each new clip entered,the point of aim is refocused. Saying certain guns only belong to trained soldiers or law enforcement is the tip of a very slippery slope. I think we need to focus on stricter enforcement of excisting laws and on our mental health system as it is today in America. In closing, i humbly offer this analogy: if you went to your doctor with a severe sore throat and he told you to first get undressed and put a gown on and then bend over the exam table, would you not put up an argument that he not only was looking at the problem from the wrong angle, he was also looking for a solution in the wrong area?