The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Deroy Murdock Weighs In

2.23.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 4)

LOCK AND LOAD
Re: Christopher Orlet's Sulejmen the Mysterious:

Is Mr. Orlet a Canadian? Has he never heard the term "An armed society is a polite society"? Can he not perceive the hesitation someone might feel if he were about to open fire on a group of people, if he knew that at least some of them were likely to shoot back? Atlanta is rife with stories of would-be gunmen who fled for the hills when confronted by the barrel of the would-be victim's Glock (Atlantans tend to buy locally).

On 9/11 I was living in a building with a predominantly Muslim population, many of them arrayed in burqas and traditional dress. My sister was visiting me from the US and she was terrified that they would come after us. I told her that on the contrary, they all assumed that Americans ALL carry guns and they were terrified WE were coming after THEM. Within 24 hours there wasn't a burqa or hijab to be seen in the entire neighborhood.

It's not only guns that prevent crime, Mr. Orlet. Sometimes the perception of concealed weapons is just as effective.
-- Kate Shaw
Toronto, Ontario

My thanks to Christopher Orlet for identifying me as among those who are "a bit whacked" for carrying a gun. I could argue that, since the planet's population is about six billion and more than one person on the planet has been murdered by a jihadist, the odds seem a bit worse than Orlet's quoted one-in-ten-billion chance of dying this way. Or I could argue that carrying a gun provides protection against other violent criminals, such as drug addicts, gang bangers, or car jackers, and not just jihadists or the mentally unstable. Or I could argue that my gun also protects innocent people from crimes even when I am not a likely victim. I may not know her but you'll still be looking into the barrel of a gun if you try to rape her in my presence. Or I could argue that carrying a gun is no different than voting -- use the right to prevent losing it. Or I could argue that carrying a gun protects me in the same way as using seat belts, eating a healthy diet, and exercising regularly, all of which I do because the investment far outweighs the potential consequences. But being a bit whacked, I'm not likely to have sound judgment and clarity of thought to support those arguments. If only we had Hillary's health care system in place now, I could get proper treatment to correct my illness. Until then, I remain cocked, locked, and ready to rock!
-- Tom Cook
Raleigh, North Carolina

I wonder how far back these things go. Isn't Sirhan Sirhan a Palestinian?
-- Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida

HISTORY LESSONS
Re: Donald Parnell's letter (under "Rights and Wrongs") and Christian Evans' letter (under "Clean Slate") in Reader Mail's Rudy Go Round:

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I am something of an amateur etymologist (Mr. Homnick might quip, that means I go buggy over words!). My readings on the Founders' use of the phrase "a well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment suggest that they used "regulate" in its 18th century-contemporary context (now, largely, obsolete). To them, the word meant "bring order, method, or uniformity to." Ergo, the militia was to be well-trained -- then drilled to hone members' ability to act in concert.

Unfortunately, in the middle of the 19th century, someone coined the word "bureaucrat" -- ever since, those creatures have interpreted the verb "regulate" to mean "subject to strict governmental control." Thence, "Big Tim" Sullivan, Thomas Dodd, Carolyn McCarthy, and Sarah Brady.
-- David Gonzalez
Wheeling, Illinois

Mr. Christian Evans advises to "read the Bible cover to cover...", nominal advice I suppose but having given the subject of religion casual study over the (many) years I have always been puzzled in discussions of this type when a writer makes a theocratic statement about what the "Bible" says. Even casual reference studies seem to indicate that that document is the victim of several less than authoritative interpretations and translations. The current King James version for instance, the most commonly cited source was "translated" in 1611 if memory serves (No I was not present!) by the elite of the time in the King's circle of friends. Their use of English was light years away from the common persons vernacular, for instance the use of the word "Heaven" was literally "Sky" not a place where one received eternal rewards or punishments. The well-known mistranslation of "witch" from the root Hebrew word for "poisoner" remains a classic example. My point and I do have one, is that the debates over "What God said" no matter what religion one is foisting remains a subjective matter of interpretation. But it seems endlessly fun for some to debate. Sounds like everyday politics to me and with as much emotional import. Behind enemy lines,
-- Craig Sarver
Seattle, Washington

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Health Care, Joe Biden, Television, Medicaid, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Fascism