This is a rebuttal to Rev. Jim Boswell’s Aug. 4 opinion article, “Banning assault rifles no brainer.” When tragic incidents such as occurred in Colorado, we must not lose sight as to why the Second Amendment exists and cause worse problems by overreacting.  The Second Amendment was not put into the constitution for recreational use of arms. The Second Amendment’s primary purpose is for “the people” to have uninfringed rights to military arms to protect themselves from a tyranical government.

The U.S. is one of the few nations on earth where “the people” have the right to arm themselves. The intent of the Second Amendment is for “the people” to be able to arm themselves with military weapons. Governments which strictly control firearms, inflict more suffering and death than caused by the illegal use of firearms.

The question which should be asked when firearm violence occurs is: What motivated the person to become violent? John Lott’s published research indicates crime and gun violence increases when gun rights are severely controlled or restricted. At www.GunFacts.info data supports Lott’s findings.  The book “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is insightful in how society trains our youth to be psychopaths. It’s not the instrument of death which is the problem; it’s the mind which uses instruments of death for illegal purposes.

Let’s protect the Second Amendment so we can remain free citizens and let’s attack the true problem; let’s stop training our child to be psychopathic killers.

Ed Moser

Danvers

More from pantagraph.com

(18) comments

ChubbyAlaskaGriz
ChubbyAlaskaGriz

While I personally am no fan of guns- have never owned one- not even when I lived in Alaska where many had guns to protect themselves against wild beasts. I am a fan of personal rights. (I should note that on more than one occasion I was glad that neighbors in Alaska owned guns!) And to me- as per the case of the recent tragic Colorado killing spree- it makes about as much sense to ban cinemas and red hair dye as it does to ban guns. Just sayin'.

annieoakley
annieoakley

If guns kill people then I can blame misspelled words on my keyboard! lmao

clg4899
clg4899

Your guns will not stop a tyrannical government from being overthrown. You must be living a dream.

ChubbyAlaskaGriz
ChubbyAlaskaGriz

But they will be responsible for causing violence/death/destruction down the street, in Chicago and elsewhere around the globe?

RetiredMilitary
RetiredMilitary

Tell that to the freedom fighters from Libya and presently in Syria...!!!

Turner Joy

The term "assault rifle" is rather imprecise. But Mr. Moser is even more imprecise when he uses the term "military weapon". I think most reasonable people would have a problem with the civilian possession of "military weapons" when there are no limitations specified and certainly the Supreme Court, in the Heller Decision, has said that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.

moral compass

The assertion that the Second Amendment exists for the purpose of allowing " “the people” to have uninfringed rights to military arms to protect themselves from a tyranical government." raises a bit of a dilemma. If Mr. Moser believes "the people" have individual rigts to protect themselves from the government, then "the people" must necessarily have rights to RPGs, cannons, machine guns, and ultimately atomic weapons. How else could anyone reasonably protect himself from a government with all these extreme weapons? If, one the other hand, the government has the right to restrict "the people" from individual possession of any weapons, why not from assault rifles? Who gets to decide what weapons "the people" can have?

As for LTC Grossman, the only time I heard him speak in person was after Columbine and the shooting at the Amish school. At that time he was advocating "hardening" school targets by arming teachers. Enough said....

thoughts a million
thoughts a million

"The Second Amendment’s primary purpose is for “the people” to have uninfringed rights to military arms to protect themselves from a tyranical government."
.
Who defines/decides "tyrannical?" If we use this as a basis, then all guns should be turned in as I don't see our government as tyrannical.

outoftowner

Recently, we have seen a number of big city mayors openly state that they would punish a businessman because he exercised his 1st ammendment right to freedom of speech.


If mayors of our most prominent cities punishing a person for exercising a constitutional right is not tyrannical action, I don't know what is.

BHirsh
BHirsh

Actually, a cogent contemporary train of abuses could be created rivaling that on the Declaration of Independence.

goneriding

I can't for the life of me understand the 2nd amendment is so we can defend our self's from the goverment and if you look around today that mite be soon.They tax us and they don't represent us they take all we have and still want more.So how long can we keep this up if you don't know it your really not free.They got you coming and going and it is time two see that it's got to stop.People been killing people sence man first walk on earth.But now they do it with gun's.By banning one gun it will be the start of thing's to came.So i for one im not giving up not one gun there mine to defend my self and my family till the fary end if need be.So you can say what you whant but remeber RUBY RIDGE.People need to keep all there gun's they mite need them.So feel to bash me or not but im not giving in and. No im not ted nugent but he is right with what he's been talking abouts SO LIVE FREE FOR NOW.

annieoakley
annieoakley

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873) **** If you do not want to protect yourself then don't try to stop someone else from doing so. People really need to read The Declaration of Independence! The very reasons we had a revolutionary war was for the same reasons that are going on today. Our government is tyrannical. We are NOT being represented. Oh sure, we vote in this guy or that guy, but do they really represent us or themselves?

Archie Goodwin

The DHS, NOAA, and the Social Security administration recently purchased hundreds of thousands of rounds of hollow point ammunition. A SSA office in Florida recently had a training exercise in which BPS officers carrying automatic weapons practiced protecting the office from civil unrest following a financial collapse. The US Army is currently training units to defend the government against domestic uprising. Obama's tyrannical government is not fiction. It is happening.

CLG4
CLG4

Freedom is not free. Anyone who thinks that the government should take care of all your problems is defiantly not a free person, they have already given themselves to the government.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by people who could see and did not want a government taking care of THEM. Few on this blog really understand what freedoms our founding fathers envisioned and stood for.

Votes often

Mr. Boswell wrote," The Second Amendment’s primary purpose is for “the people” to have uninfringed rights to military arms to protect themselves from a tyranical government." The second amendment was written in opposition to a full time federal army. Our founding fathers thought that a full time army was dangerous to democracy. Therefor if an army was needed, it was to be raised though a militia. I have yet to read any writings by second amendment enthusiasts that oppose the American military establishment; which by any description is a huge part of the federal government.

Harcourt

I continue to support a constitutional amendement that would repeal the right to bear arms. Violence just begets more violence, and anyone carrying an arm has the potential to perpetrate violence.

outoftowner

Anyone carrying a knife has the potential to perpetrate violence. Anyone driving a vehicle has the potential to perpetrate violence. Anyone that cobbles together certain mixtures of legally owned and used chemicals has the potential to perpetrate violence.


Violence was around long before guns existed. Taking them away won't change that fact.

glr427

Government is the SERVANT, not the master... why on earth would we allow our servant to disarm us. Or leave with useless arms. A well armed man is a CITIZEN. An unarmed or poorly armed man is a SUBJECT. Hunting and target practice were not cited as justification for the 2nd amendment by the framers. Self-defense and security of their life, property and liberty against criminals, invading armies, and a usurping federal government were the given reasons.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

That question that needs asked is why are there so many children being raised who were not taught to value human life? Just look at Chicago, the murder capital of the world... the failure of some parents there is obvious.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.