Skip to footer

Readers Write: The great Second Amendment debate

Letters to the Editor for the February 18, 2013 weekly print issue: To speak of gun ownership as a privilege that can be given up ignores history and the philosophical basis of the right to self-protection. Findley's op-ed was a voice of reason in the hyperbolic discussion on gun control.

| Miami and Carmichael, Calif.

The great Second Amendment debate

Samuel J. Findley's Jan. 28 commentary, "Why I'm giving up my guns," necessitates a response. Behind the passionate debate over gun control and armed crime lurk assumptions about the link between guns and violence. Indeed, the belief that more guns in private hands means higher rates of armed crime underlies most modern gun-control legislation.

But today Americans own some 200 million guns and have seen eight consecutive years of declining violence. The British, on the other hand, who are prohibited from carrying firearms and thus limited in their right to self-defense, have suffered a dramatic increase in rates of violent crime.

In fact, the individual's right to possess a means of self-protection is not granted by the Second Amendment or any other government edict, nor can it be taken away by government rule. It is the inherent right of the individual to protect his own life and freedom. It predates any government.

The American colonists who crafted the Second Amendment knew this well. They had recently fled a tyrannical government bent on control of the individual. When King George sent British troops to enforce his edicts upon the colonists (including disarming them so that they could not resist), the American Revolution resulted.

To focus on hunting as the main point of gun ownership – and speak of it as a privilege that can be given up – ignores history and the philosophical basis of the right to self-protection. Mr. Findley's opinion piece belittles that point and that right.

Larry Cook

Miami

This is a quick note of appreciation (and no small admiration) for Findley's commentary.

His piece provided a voice of thoughtful reason in a somewhat hyperbolic public discussion on gun control. It was a welcome breath of fresh air amid the hot, close, and strident media atmosphere surrounding discussions about firearms.

My thanks to Findley for sharing his inner discussion on this topic with all of us.

Lois Wade

Carmichael, Calif.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Readers Write: The great Second Amendment debate
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Readers-Respond/2013/0218/Readers-Write-The-great-Second-Amendment-debate
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe