Posted on 05/07/2002 9:53:16 AM PDT by 45Auto
I am an unlikely supporter of the National Rifle Association and similar groups. I've not fired a gun in more than 40 years. I dislike hunting intensely and believe all firearms to be symbols of a violent society. But I am also a very practical human being.
I supported the Texas law that allowed concealed handguns. I believe strongly in the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment guaranteeing private ownership of guns. But I also hold that such gun ownership comes with responsibility and consequences for one's actions.
Since Sept. 11, my support of gun ownership has only intensified.
What if the pilots or others on those ill-fated planes had been armed? The thought of a gunfight on a high-altitude plane is frightening, but the mere appearance of armed pilots and passengers might have turned things around.
I have always believed that humans are inherently violent creatures. That gives no comfort to those who hope for human progress and enlightenment. But because of the violent nature of man, we must deter violence by armed means.
Police are armed. There are armed forces to deter aggressors and terrorists. In an extension of this argument, why not an armed citizenry as well?
One situation supports my idea of an armed citizenry.
About 10 years ago, a student told me a very frightening tale. She was driving alone on Interstate 30 late at night. A car with two men came up alongside hers. They began hurling insults at her, motioning her to pull over. She looked straight ahead, trying not to make any face-to-face contact. They continued their insults and tried to run her car off the highway. The mere description of it is frightening.
However, she always carried a gun with her, as she had night classes and also worked evenings as well. She pulled the gun from her purse and held it up so the two harassing men could plainly view it. The convincing way she held the gun and her determined look made the men drive off without any confrontation.
She was convinced that without the gun, the men would have forced her off the highway. By the way, she knew well how to use firearms.
Since then, the issue of terrorism has become front and center for us all.
Why not have everyone who is willing, trained and licensed to carry legal weapons be allowed to do so? I would feel more comfortable in public places if I knew that many people there might be carrying firearms and knew how to use them.
True, terrorists bent on suicide might not be deterred, but they might be stopped before their horror could be unleashed. This has happened frequently in Israel and others places plagued with terrorism. If terrorism were to be unleashed in this country, as some predict and fear, an armed and responsible citizenry would be a helpful addition to the fight.
Citizens have a right to defend their bodies, their property and their liberty. The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of the law." Responsible people have the right - perhaps even the obligation - of defending themselves, their families and their property from terrorism, foreign or domestic.
We do not live in a pleasant world. Those who are against firearms unjustly and unfairly believe that depriving people of legal firearms makes us safer. They are wrong!
Please know that gun use and ownership is commensurate with responsibility. If anyone using a firearm harms the innocent, that person should be held accountable, swiftly and surely. I have always believed in gun ownership, but the tragic events of Sept. 11 and the ongoing threat of terrorism have bolstered my long-held beliefs considerably.
Allan Saxe is a UT-Arlington associate professor.
See? Not all academics are liberal pinheads.
You have to admit though, living in Texas probably had something to do with it. It's hard to imagine an associate professor at a state university in New Jersey, for instance, coming to the same logical conclusions.
I'm surprised Professor Saxe hasn't been censured, condemned and/or dismissed from UT Arlington for this. In Liberaland, the truth must be crushed by any means necessary.
You got That right!!
Good question, but for the "licensed" part, Dr. Saxe.
I can find no reference in the U.S. Constitution which allows any government official to "license" a Constitutionally guaranteed unalienable right.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep an bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Self-evident, is it not?
Taken as a whole, however, you are moving in the right direction.
P.S. Over the past 43 years, I have used a weapon in a manner similar to (shown to, pointed at, never fired at the mutt(s)) your student 7 times to protect myself or my family. I am convinced that had I not been armed in those circumstances, great harm could have come to me or my family.
amen to that! and here we have politicians who still do not support the arming of pilots and would rather choose to shoot the airliner full of passengers out of the sky. pathetic....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.