Follow up on Open Response, posted yesterday...

Well, it appears Mr. Christoff has replied to my response, (linked in the headline). And what follows is his reply as well as my response to Mr. Christoff', (which I must admit is more honorable than most. For most of the seemingly Anti-Gun crowd do NOT respond);
.
Well, I would ask you…

Have you ever been the victim of violent crime? Have you ever been confronted by a criminal, obviously intent upon causing you or loved ones, harm? Have you ever seen the victim or a rape? A murder? A beating? A maiming? And taken part in the sufferings of a victim of crime?

If so, tell me more. If not, why are you asking me?

I’m not opposed to gun ownership or a person protecting himself or his home, which the law currently allows. The concern is that the proposed law might be used as a shield against an unwarranted shooting, or to actually cover up a crime.

-- Chris Christoff
.
And following is my response;
.
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your reply. And the answers to your questions are; Yes, yes and yes. And, because it appeared you were coming from a different angle. Such as, that people shouldn't be armed at all. It is the way the story came across, as it appeared to me anyways.
.
You can just about be guaranteed that is precisely how SOME people WILL twist the proposed law. As people do with ALL other laws.
.
The reason for response, is that it is my duty. Look for any attempts or suppositions held out as restraining the Constitutionally guaranteed Right, (and DUTY, as indicated in the Federalist Papers and by many of the Founders).
.
There are MANY in the media that promote the contrary position on the citizens Right, (individual Right), to Keep and Bear Arms. And this, despite the plain Intentions of our Founders, in having us ALL properly armed and equipped to meet any danger to our Freedom or Liberty. That may arise from ANY source.
.
That the issue of 'gun control' is still pushed, after the horror of 9/11 is beyond me. You would think EVERYONE that is able, would be ARMED. Many of the Founders held this out as being the DUTY of the American citizen. And it should be readily apparent that 'gun control' is a dismal failure. It is an exercise of prior restraint, which is clearly Repugnant to the Constitution.
.
The words 'Shall Not be Infringed' were placed in that Guaranteed Individual Right for a distinct number of reasons. Reasons that are clearly outlined in the Federalist Papers. For instance;
.
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29. And Alex specified People - NOT Militia. When he wrote about militia he used the word militia. When he wrote about the people he used the word people.
.
The fear of 'how' a citizen 'may' over react or abuse the right, has NO bearing on the issue at ALL. As it is a Guaranteed Right, that 'SHALL NOT be Infringed'.
.
The same restrictive argument could be applied to cars, planes, medicine, doctors, lawyers, NEWSPAPER REPORTERS, etc. How would YOU like it, if YOU were bound by perverse laws that dictated; what to write, when to write, and HOW to write it? That BOUND you in such a way as was AGAINST YOUR RIGHT to do your job, effectively? For some government agency to poke their noses into where they LEGALLY don't belong?
.
Can you understand where I, and many others, are coming from? We are attempting to fight off government that is over-stepping its BOUNDS. You, as a reporter should appreciate that more than anybody. For was it not the FIRST DUTY of the press, originally, to WARN the people about improper government use of power?
.
Regards,
David