- Hank Aaron steps to fundraising plate for Democrat Michelle Nunn
- ISIL terrorists blow up burial site of Jonah, vow more of same
- Impeach Obama, say 35 percent in new poll
- Taliban yank 14 Shiites off bus, bind and shoot them on Afghan road
- Obama takes aim at ‘corporate deserters’
- Dick’s Sporting Goods lays off 478 PGA golf pros
- Senators: Cease-fire must allow Israel to defend against rockets, tunnels
- Sierra Leone doctor fighting Ebola catches disease
- Iraq welcomes Russian fighter jets, helicopter gunships into ISIL fight
- John McCain laments: Obama’s ‘self-pity … is really kind of sad’
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Second Amendment is inviolable
Question of the Day
In his “Political Theater” column Jan. 14 (“Why you’re right to hate both parties”) Joseph Curl uses examples of “two horrible things” to illustrate why he hates both political parties. I believe, however, his example of why he currently hates the Republican Party is flawed.
Mr. Curl brings up the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School school shooting and the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting. He writes that both shooters were carrying AR-15s, a civilian version of an M-16, the war weapon of choice for many years, and that in the Colorado incident, the shooter had a 100-round magazine. Mr. Curl agrees with the Democrats that these guns and all like them should be outlawed because no one needs an AR-15 to hunt rabbits, and the fact that they can do such damage in the hands of the wrong people outweighs any right to own them.
This argument fails to hold water for several reasons. First of all, our rights are not given to us by the government, so it is not for the government to take them away, or in any way whittle them down to what one party or another deems reasonable. Second, if these kinds of weapons don’t belong in the hands of certain people, who will decide what people should or should not own them? On what factors will this decision be based?
Finally — and most importantly — the sole purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to hold weapons necessary to defend themselves against their government, to form militias and fight to preserve their constitutional rights should the elected government encroach on them. The men who crafted our founding documents had spent most of their lives under the authority of a king. In school they had learned of the English civil war and in America they had lived through the Revolutionary War. They knew about runaway governments that trampled people’s rights and freedoms, and they believed that every citizen had a right to defend against attempts at despotism. We should take that right very seriously and defend it vigorously. History can turn on the number of rounds in a magazine.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
Get Breaking Alerts
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- PRUDEN: The Democratic-wannabe mice under Hillary Clinton's feet
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Presidents of Honduras, Guatemala blame U.S. for border children crisis
- Evidence shows Russia firing artillery into Ukraine: Pentagon
- Norway expects imminent 'concrete threat' from ISIL terrorists 'within days'
- Obama takes aim at 'corporate deserters'