Letter: We need people who go beyond the emotional rhetoric
It saddens me to read letters from well meaning people who do not understand history. The world we live in is so fast paced that people see and hear only "sound bites" - not the whole story. Those who endorse limitations on any of our inalienable rights - those rights granted to us by our Supreme Maker - seem to be those who do not understand the history behind why our Founding Fathers were so adamant about enumerating them. Man, or the agents of man, i.e., the government, cannot give us these rights. They are ours by birth. Man can only curtail these rights by fear, intimidation, or by our inactivity.
One of the purposes of listing our rights, in the order that they did, is to illustrate their importance. The only way, in the past, to protect our rights was to be strong and able to protect ourselves. To that end - the people needed to be armed as if they were the military - because, in those days they were the military. Therefore, were we to follow our Founding Fathers original intent - we would all have access to Stinger Missiles and tanks. Now, I'm not advocating that. But I would endorse thoughtful and thorough discourse before the infringement of any of our rights. (The first meaning of the word infringement is to break off; the second meaning is to defeat, frustrate; the third meaning is to encroach).
What frustrates me is there are so many people who do not remember arguments put forth by our ancestors such as "those who give up freedom for security deserve neither." Even more frustrating is how quickly we forget. There are those born in the 1930s still alive who heard the same arguments we are hearing from well meaning people today. (For those who don't remember, the Socialist Democratic Party, started out by registering all firearms. If you do not know their other name, you just made my point for me.)
According to the National Review there are 7.7 million people who suffer from severe mental illness. Of those, one percent (1 percent) are responsible for the majority of problems. Connecticut was one of six states that does NOT have mandatory "assisted outpatient treatment." Before we start curtailing our rights, perhaps we should be sure the one percent are given what they need so they are not a threat to the community.
I don't want to be an alarmist nor a conspiracy theorist. But, when I read history, I can only wonder; where are those who read and comprehend beyond the emotional rhetoric?
Secretary, Osage Sportsmens Club