Anti-gun column draws more unfriendly fire

I would like to expose some important flaws in reasoning in Doug Gillett’s April 1 column. The horror of Arkansas was not necessarily preventable by legislation. The initial reaction to such a tragedy is to attempt to prevent its recurrence. This invariably gives the mob of democracy a purpose.

Our founding fathers realized the rights of minorities and minority viewpoints must at times be protected from majority decision-making. Pure democracy is synonymous with mob rule.

Legislation punishing parents and legal guardians for allowing their children access to guns is an admirable attempt to deal with the problem, and one I am not completely opposed to in theory.

Many underage DUI deaths occur, yet we do not propose to punish parents if their child steals the key to the liquor cabinet. Contrast that with the laws already in place to prevent the purchase or possession of alcohol and firearms by those under 21. If a parent willfully supplies either to a child, they should share the responsibility for the consequences.

But a parent who had conscientiously done everything short of removing guns from the house to prevent being held responsible would be horrified at incurring liability under such a law.

Many people undoubtedly reacted to the previous sentence thinking, "Guns do not belong in a home anyway." This is a valid opinion, but too much gun legislation has the indirect effect of making legally owning a gun too difficult.

Thus the NRA is forced to fight virtually all gun legislation, even what seems reasonable on the surface. For proof of this agenda by extreme anti-gun proponents, consider Gillett’s true position: abolishing the Second Amendment.

Ask Bill Cosby or Michael Jordan if civilization, cell phones and police were enough to protect their son and father, respectively.

I carry a gun and a cell phone in my car in case I need them. I imagine the few people who could legally own a gun in Los Angeles felt safer during the riots. The riots were fortunately an extreme situation, but the police were not strong enough to protect us from our highly advanced level of civilization there.

Gillett was correct when he pointed out the right to keep and bear arms was necessary when our country was founded. That was a time of independence and self reliance, qualities that Gillett, but not myself nor the Constitution, are willing to relinquish.

Richard K. Smith
second-year law student

In response to Doug Gillett’s column about gun control, I have to say that what Gillett proposes is the most ignorant thing I have ever read in this paper.

In the Second Amendment, the "well-regulated militia" is the citizens of this country and not a military body as he implies. Our founding fathers understood that a free society must be armed in order to be truly free after they themselves needed to take up arms against the tyranny of their British rulers.

A person cannot rely on the police or an army to protect themselves from danger. The police are a reactionary force for after acrime has occurred. In an age of high crime, the individual is responsible for his or her safety.

Just because you do not choose to exercise your right to own a firearm does not mean the rest of this nation should cast away this valuable right on a whim. Many people like myself own firearms for target shooting and competitions. Guns do have a valid purpose, and owning them is a right and not a privilege.

I agree gun owners should keep their guns in a safe place, but guns should not be outlawed because of a few misguided individuals. There is no easy solution to keeping what happened in Jonesboro, Ark., from happening again, but banning guns in this country is not it.

Why not repeal the right to free speech and freedom of the press since you want to amend our constitution? After all, those rights can be misused as well.

Joseph Holden
senior
geography

Student apathy leaves us with no local voice

How can SGA President Brett Newman possibly say in the April 1 Red and Black that it is "dirty politics" to enforce the single-family zoning ordinance?

Dirty politics is when elected officials serve the needs of the non-voting special interests (tobacco companies, labor unions, the gun lobby, etc.) rather than the needs of the voters who elected them. Considering that only a trivial number of students votes in ACC elections, it seems that any politician who caters to them would be practicing "dirty politics." If students REALLY want change it is their responsibility to vote.

Should the zoning ordinance be changed? Considering that Athens would be little more than a bump in the road without the University, yes it should. Can students initiate the change? Yes, but we have to work for change by voting in local elections so the ACC government will take us seriously.

Can the SGA help initiate student-friendly changes in Athens? I think they can, and the External Affairs Committee is a good start. But who do they represent? You would be hard pressed to make a case for SGA truly representing student interests since only 13 percent of students voted in the last SGA election.

For SGA to be taken seriously, it must demonstrate that it represents the entire student body, not just 13 percent.

Gene Crawford
doctoral student
microbiology