My response to the brilliance in the O'Colly

[3inSlugger]

So the editor has published my response...it is already up on the website and will be out in tomorrow's paper.

Anyway, here's my column:

http://www.ocolly.com/opinion/columns/article_2e27071a-ebfb-11e1-8413-0019bb30f31a.html

And another columnist's "Christian perspective":

http://www.ocolly.com/opinion/columns/article_3526b098-ebfa-11e1-9cd6-0019bb30f31a.html

Tell me what you think about both. What you liked or disliked...etc.


And just for kicks...this was my sarcastic response that I chose not to respond with.
It hasn't been edited and is incomplete, but I thought some might enjoy:

Monday began the semester...with a gangbang of firearm articles. The assault in weapons began with a horrible analogy by our own Trenton Sperry!
It should be obvious how a bear is different than a gun. I have five (guns that is) and none of them have a mind of their own, get hungry, attack people of their own accord, or growl threateningly. My guns also are much cheaper and dont require leashes, though they do enjoy a steady diet of lead.

More importantly, there is no 28th amendment to the Constitution stating: "A well regulated Grizzly being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Bears, shall not be infringed."
Do you know why there isn't a Bear Amendment to the Constitution? There is no necessity for it. Firearms provide for the bare necessity of defense. Besides, bears would be a horrible defensive tool. They defecate and are easily distracted by the smell of meat. Joe R. Felon would merely have to throw some salmon down and that bear would be bearing down on that flopping fish.

The fact that Mr. Sperry wishes to bear bears on campus makes me want to be able to carry on campus even more! Unlike a handgun, that bear is likely to smell meat in my backpack and attack me. Unlikea handgun, Mr. Sperry will not be able to control his bear.

Such a frivolous and poorly analogous article bears the need for an equal response.

 

[68mustang]

I read the articles on the o'colley, could you expect anything less? These people writing the anti guns articles are writing based on fears and what they've seen in movies. I doubt they've ever shot a gun in their life.

 

[mightymouse]

3inSlugger, your op-ed article was an excellent response. Well reasoned, and well written. Thank you!

 

[otis147]

good write up, man.

as a peaceful Christian, i disagree completely with the 2nd article. Jesus instructed his followers to be armed. one of the last comandments. engraved on my dustcover.

 

[yukonjack]

good write up, man.

as a peaceful Christian, i disagree completely with the 2nd article. Jesus instructed his followers to be armed. one of the last comandments. engraved on my dustcover.

What verse would that be?

 

[otis147]

Luke 22:36
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

 

[soonerwings]

While I like your line of reasoning that the constitution has guaranteed rights that are favored by both ends of the political spectrum, I would have just used the first amendment as a counterpoint without trying to stretch so far as to include talking about abortion and Obamacare.

Firstly, the commerce clause was NOT the justification used to uphold Obamacare. If you read the opinion at supremecourt.gov, you'll notice that it reads:

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

Rather, it was upheld because of the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes.

Secondly, there is no express right to privacy found in the Constitution. Rather, the "right to privacy" has been established by the SCOTUS rulings based on the 14th and 9th amendments in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade.

The difference is subtle, but it is there. The first and second amendments are rights EXPLICITLY given to the people while Obamacare has been upheld as being within the scope of government authority and the "right to privacy" has been established by SCOTUS interpretation of other rights. I think setting the argument up as a first amendment vs. second amendment type argument may have been more effective. All that being said, you article was MILES better than the one written by the "I'm a jerk" guy and actually relied on logic vs. emotion. I can't wait to read the comments on his article and compare them to the comments on yours.

 

[AtomicTango]

Oooh the O'Collegian. I had my back-and-forth with them when I went there too. Damn, I really miss that place and its crappy paper. (I use the term 'crappy' endearingly).

 

[3inSlugger]

While I like your line of reasoning that the constitution has guaranteed rights that are favored by both ends of the political spectrum, I would have just used the first amendment as a counterpoint without trying to stretch so far as to include talking about abortion and Obamacare.

Firstly, the commerce clause was NOT the justification used to uphold Obamacare. If you read the opinion at supremecourt.gov, you'll notice that it reads:



Rather, it was upheld because of the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes.

Secondly, there is no express right to privacy found in the Constitution. Rather, the "right to privacy" has been established by the SCOTUS rulings based on the 14th and 9th amendments in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade.

The difference is subtle, but it is there. The first and second amendments are rights EXPLICITLY given to the people while Obamacare has been upheld as being within the scope of government authority and the "right to privacy" has been established by SCOTUS interpretation of other rights. I think setting the argument up as a first amendment vs. second amendment type argument may have been more effective. All that being said, you article was MILES better than the one written by the "I'm a jerk" guy and actually relied on logic vs. emotion. I can't wait to read the comments on his article and compare them to the comments on yours.

Thank you very much for the critique. I actually wasn't aware of Obamacare being upheld outside of the Commerce Clause. However, since Congressional power to levy taxes is granted in the Constitution proper, it still proves my point.

Concerning the assumed right to privacy, I realize that the Constitution does not grant a right to privacy. However, since the target of this article was to those that lean to the left, I assumed they would assume the right to privacy was an actual right enumerated (which I think it should have been had the Founders been able to know what would happen in later generations).

I realize I took some liberties, but the concept holds true.

Thanks for commenting soonerwings! And thanks to everyone else for their comments on the O'Colly article and in this forum.

 

[Glocktogo]

My reply to the "Christian Perspective" article:

Let’s consider your premise for a moment. When the whole “culture of violence” is brought up, I have cause for concern that the message is directed at the wrong people. Are you saying this to law abiding citizens who approve of “Make My Day” or “Open Carry” laws? Or are you addressing those elements of our society that good Christians must defend themselves from? It does no good to advise an armed but peaceful person to stop being fearful. Only those with an irrational fear need such counsel. Unfortunately, we often hear the irrational fear and mistake it for wisdom. Such could be said of those that fear weapons and call for them to be banned or restricted. A weapon in and of itself is not evil. It can be an instrument of good or evil, depending on who wields it. In that respect it’s no different than a kitchen knife, a garden hoe or an automobile. It would be exceedingly naive to believe that removing weapons from the hands of good law abiding people will somehow make the world a better place. It merely makes a world where the naked aggression of evil people goes unchecked.

If the police were everywhere and could prevent most crimes as some irrational people believe, we wouldn’t have the crime statistics we do. They would be significantly lower. Unfortunately, a police report and attempts to apprehend an attacker is cold comfort to a victim. Likewise, obtaining a weapon in a fearful, post-attack state is also cold comfort to a victim. It doesn’t undo the harm they suffered. It’s not a magic talisman that will ward off any evil. It’s merely a tool. I prefer comparing it to an insurance policy. It’s something to weigh carefully and decide in a rational frame of mind. You don’t wait to buy car insurance until after a wreck, so why would you wait until you’ve become a crime victim to buy defensive equipment? A police officer doesn’t fear the criminal, so why should an armed citizen? Only those who are unprepared to defend themselves should be fearful.

As a professional gun toter, I have a very positive outlook on life. I have little to fear because I go about my daily routine prepared to take care of myself. I don’t require someone else to do it for me. This level of self-reliance fosters confidence. Confident people are much more likely to deal effectively with others. We feel empathy and compassion for those less fortunate. We tend to exhibit protective behaviors for those who aren’t able to defend themselves. Extreme examples are prevalent on military battlefields. Our troops are prepared and willing to visit violence upon those that would harm the innocent. They will also lay down their own lives in order to save others, even defenseless civilians and animals.

To hope for the best but prepare for the worst is wise counsel. Simply asking Christians to lay down their arms or reject violence sounds marvelous, but in practice it merely emboldens the wicked. Instead, we should ask the wicked to reject violence and lay down their arms, lest they suffer the very fear they wish to inflict on the peaceful among us. Fear is only negative when the good are fearful. When it’s the other way around, it’s a very good thing. The more fearful the criminal is to attack an innocent, the less likely it becomes that the innocent will have to react with violence.