It is quite appalling to hear a former law enforcement agent, one who was sworn to uphold the constitution nonetheless, profess that automatic weapons serve no purpose for law-abiding citizens. If Rev. Ray had decided to read the contract that he agreed to when becoming a law enforcement agent, he would have realized that the second amendment right to possess firearms has nothing to do with hunting. Once upon a time, Americans sought liberty; to defend such liberty from oppressive government, the second amendment was born. I strongly agree with the implementation of weapon-bans. However, all guns are bad, not just those possessed by civilians. Let’s not forget that militaries kill innocent people as well; we just give it the misguided name of collateral damage, instead of the appropriate title of murder. As long as this government has the right to use its militaries (NATO and civilian) against its citizens, as it now does with the suspension of posse comitatus, law-abiding citizens have a right to own comparable weapons to defend against the possibility of tyrannical government. Unarming civilians of comparable weapons alleviates this government of any fear it may have of an uprising of discontented citizens and, therefore, robs citizens of their guarantee for freedom. I am sympathetic to Rev. Ray’s concern about guns being used improperly by citizens. However, I am more concerned with this government’s capacity to use its guns improperly against me and my fellow Americans.
Justin R. Gregory
Boulder
94415 381682Good read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was performing slightly research on that. And he just bought me lunch since I identified it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thank you for lunch! 986890