National debate about freedom, not guns, Potsdam man says
To the Editor
I’ve heard venomous attacks on both sides of the gun issue. I can’t believe some of the pointless arguments people come up with when discussing their viewpoints on gun ownership. One that I’ve heard many a time is the “what if” scenario where someone says “well, what if the people in Newton, CT etc. had a gun on them and could have saved lives?” I find this to be an irrelevant argument that doesn’t help the pro gun people.This is how I see it: You’re either pro freedom or against freedom. Let’s forget about the “what if” situations, and focus on what’s really important: The U.S. Constitution. And that whole “shall not be infringed” part of the Second Amendment. Just as the anti gun crowd keeps whining about safety, I also don’t take stock in talk of hypothetical situations; especially ones geared toward events that have already happened.
Let’s keep the argument real. The “safety” people don’t want me to have a gun, and think my right to own one is a privilege that can easily be taken away.
I don’t need statistics or hypothetical situations to win the argument against that though. I have the Bill of Rights on my side.
So, if any gun rights supporters are reading, please take my advice and don’t get involved in bitter arguments with the anti-gunners based on irrelevant details.
John Calhoun, Potsdam