Here is my response to Mr. Norton’s recent letter to the editor:
I am glad that you know how to hold a constitution in your hands, but you don’t seem know how to actually read what is in that constitution.
Namely, the complete text of the second amendment is as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Why did you not include the phrase “a well regulated Militia”? What part of “a well-regulated militia” do you not understand? Why do you cherry pick the second part of the second amendment?
You then construe your misreading of the second amendment to justify a libertarian world view in which all of us defend ourselves from criminals with guns, not just those farmers in the 1700s. However, when the American independence was fought, those farmers had muskets that took a minute to load and then fired only one bullet at time. There were no assault weapons that can spray 50 bullets into a crowd in 60 seconds or less.
You are also making statements that are not supported by facts. Such as, gangs and drugs over the open border along with “gun-free” zones being the most dangerous areas to be being in some “article” that you read. Those statements have not been supported by facts and have been debunked over and over again.
The truth is that gun regulations make citizens safer, as is evidence by Australia and other European nations. The correlation between the number of guns and mass shootings is exceptionally strong statistically. Furthermore, the “good guy” with a gun motif that justifies your non-truths has also been debunked countless times:
Here are some facts along with reputable sources that justify these facts:
1)gun safety policies actually make citizens safer
2) The U.S. is a primary source for crime guns in North and Central America as well as the Caribbean
It is one thing to have a philosophical point of view. It is quite another thing to cherry pick phrases and use debunked ideas in order to justify that point of view. Which is fine if we are talking about a point of view. But we are talking about innocent people dying every week because people like Mr. Norton cannot seem to change their views in light of facts. That’s not a philosophical belief, that’s a delusion.
Categories: letter to the editor
I agree with this analysis completely. Nice work.
Thank you, Mr. Napoli, for your response to Mr. Norton’s letter. It’s always helpful to counter opinions with facts. Though in today’s looking-glass world of alternative facts, I sometimes wonder what matters.