Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right

TIME TO ADMIT THE 'GUN NUTS' ARE RIGHT
Date: Aug 7, 2007 11:30 PM
Long, but worth the read.



Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right
By Keith C. Burris
Editorial page editorof the Journal InquirerJournal InquirerNorth-Central Connecticut's Hometown
paperAugust 3, 2007
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18660461&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=569380&rfi=8
In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we allreached for explanations:
How do human beings sink this low? How couldthis tragedy have been prevented? Why?There
are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. Andmaybe some old arguments
need to be hashed out again.Why not a more stringent "three strikes and you're
out" law in thisstate? Connecticut's version is so weak that it's more
like "30 strikesand we'll think about it while you strike again."Why
not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violentoffenders? Get them off
the streets. It's been proposed many times. Mostpeople 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-violentcriminals are about
to turn violent?Are home alarms really effective?How about dogs?But somehow all
of these ideas pale before the barbarity of thisparticular crime.That is why one
old question is worth asking again. It is this: What ifthe Second Amendment is for
real? Is it possible that it should berevered, 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 antiquatedremnant of a world that
will never return, but an idea as relevant andsound today as when it was written?Is
it possible that we are not talking about the right of the governmentto form a militia
when there is no standing army, but the right of theindividual to defend himself,
or herself, against both tyranny andlawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the
right of self-defense -- theright of the individual to take up arms against a government
that wantsto oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individualto
defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when localpolice 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,
andfar wiser than the watered-down alternatives.I don't think George Bush wants
to impose martial law on his fellowcitizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And
he has enlarged BigBrother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants
tocontrol 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 thelines suggested above (a real "three strikes" law and faster
trials forviolent offenders) would not have saved the lives of Jennifer, andHayley,
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, hemight
have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armedwith 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 beateninto unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was
forced to take onecaptor to the bank to fetch him money?It's worth thinking
about.Women and children are now the major targets of predators in oursociety. Government
is not protecting them very well. Many professionalwomen who work in cities know
this and take courses in self-defense. Agun may be the only realistic self-defense
against the sort of criminalswe are talking about here.And if a few women took care
of a few thugs in cases like this; if a fewstories like this one ended in a different
way -- with a woman blowingone of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a
deterrent. Livesupon 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 knowhow 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, onemust learn how to use and safely store a gun. (The National RifleAssociation
maintains an extensive national network of programs infirearms 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-lawfor predatory offenders.-- Better psychological
treatment for troubled youth.-- Religious training, in both love and self-restraint,
especially whenpeople 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 whotorture
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 maysave a life.Let's admit -- since the murderers, and
druggies, and psychos, andthieves 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.###




The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !