I find little to laugh about in J.W. Austin's letter ["Try certain registration zones for gun carriers," voices, Sept. 13] but pray it was a bad joke. Austin recommends that citizens in "high crime" areas (determined by government officials) relinquish not only their Second amendment rights but also their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.Second Amendment Scholars might find something to object in a proposition that certain geographic areas might be subject to closer scrutiny ... along with more stringent rules of weapons confiscation.
Especially in that a "government official" would define these "areas", or gun zones.
The rest of us find the proposition to be a horrible example of an attempt to bypass constitutional rights by neighborhood.
I'm resisting the temptation to list the 'wrongs' here, so save yourself from having to read a deplorably LONG blog-post and make up our own neighborhood rules for firearms confiscation.
Assuming that you have "drilled down" to this article (which as apparently the genesis of all the other 'opinion" responses:
Katie Coombs said she wants suggestions ["I want your suggestions, not your guns," Voices, Sept. 6].I'm sorry: this is the response to a response to an original article; As such, it would to be a little complicated. I'll also resist the temptation to fisk that article
The Original Katie Coombs article is here: "We Need To Stand Up to The NRA".
I'm not sure how the NRA needs to be "Stood up To", but apparently the NRA is some kind of fiendish plan to make America less safe.
1 comment:
In other words GFZ with instant frisk added. In some areas it, south and west Chicago come to mind, it just might make sense.
Post a Comment