Today's Paper Obits Today's Photos NWA Outdoors FRAN ALEXANDER: Flash from the past Best of Northwest Arkansas Crime Puzzles

Conservative defenses of guns not resonating

So here we go again! Another mass shooting and 17 people are dead and yet Congress will not put measures in place to make sure only sound-minded people have guns and the access to deadly guns is granted based on strict scrutiny. Whenever strict rules about access to guns is talked about, conservatives blatantly spread the lies such as “What about the First Amendment? Do you want to curtail the First Amendment?” or “By putting in stricter rules, you are curtailing the access to weapons for law-abiding citizens!” These counter-arguments are nothing but lies!

Let’s look at the First Amendment issue. Freedom of speech has many, many restrictions. For example, if 2,000 like-minded people wanted to assemble in the Bentonville Square, the city administration will ask them to fill out paperwork. They will ask them to seek permission. Where in the First Amendment does it says government must grant permission if people want to assemble? Nowhere! Tomorrow, if someone provokes others to kill someone, that speech is not protected by the First Amendment. If someone willfully spreads hatred, then that speech is not protected under First Amendment and no where in the text does it say hate speech should not be protected! So restrictions on speech are OK, but restrictions on guns is not?

Let’s look at the argument that any gun regulations affect the “right of the law-abiding citizens.”

Nikolas Cruz was a law-abiding citizen before he committed his heinous gun rampage. Stephen Paddock was a law-abiding citizen before the Las Vegas shootings. Adam Lanza was a law-abiding citizen before Sandy Hook shooting. Eric David Harris and Dylan Klebold were law-abiding citizens before Columbine. Many school shooters were law-abiding citizens before they committed those heinous crimes and they did not deserve to have guns in their possession. This is reality.

Another thing is about putting in sensible rules before granting access to deadly weapons, such as semi-automatic guns. If automatic weapons could be banned, why not sensible rules before granting access to semi-automatic guns? Where does the Second Amendment say anything about semi-automatic or automatic weapons? If a ban on semi-automatic weapon is considered an infringement on the rights, then why is a ban on automatic weapons or rocket-propelled grenades not an infringement on the right to “keep and bear arms”? Where is the line?

Would NRA puppets answer these questions?

Another issue I want to raise is that of the skin color of the alleged shooter. The alleged shooter in this case was a white male. The acts that shooter is alleged to have been conducted are terrorist acts. Had this shooter been a Muslim and a person of color, Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain and conservatives all over would have been shouting from the bottom of their hearts to have a military trial. Why are we not hearing about a military trial of the white boy in this case? This just shows the bigotry of conservatives.



Print Headline: NWA LETTERS

Sponsor Content