Airing Sundays from 2-5pm Eastern
contactsign upaffiliate infosponsor info
home
listen
links
about
links

SA.170x95.Saint.1216

GUN TALK TV SUB PAGE BANNER

Letter - Mayor Shirley Franklin's Opinion
To whom it may concern.

Regarding Mayor Shirley Franklin's opinion in the AJC 06/23/08

I wish to ask Mayor Franklin how a rational person could come to the conclusions she has stated in her opinion.

How is it rational to conclude that the District of Columbia's government could respond less effectively to criminals' gun violence by simply restoring the right of the law-abiding populace to defend themselves? It is not rational.

An effectively complete ban on firearms has been in effect in D.C. for over 30 years. They have a rate of violent crime unsurpassed by any city, several times higher than the rest of the United States of America.

How is it rational to conclude that rights of our "militia" are different than the rights of the individuals comprising said militia?  It is not rational.

The "militia" of our Constitution is provided for in Section 10 of the United States Code (often abbreviated USC). The Code is the list of all the laws that are written by the federal government. Section 10 USC 311 reads: "All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly.

How is it rational to conclude that laws made to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals will be challenged when the Supreme Court rules that law-abiding citizens may continue to have the right to own guns?  It is not rational.

If according to the Department of Justice' sponsored 1994 survey titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, guns are used defensively by law-abiding citizens 1.5 million times a year, how is it rational to conclude that limiting the right of those good citizens to defend themselves is somehow going to reduce big-city crime? It is not rational.

That DOJ number of 1.5 million equals roughly 1500 defensive uses of firearms for every homicide by a criminal using a gun.

How is it rational to conclude that the Supreme Court reaffirming the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun will in any way or manner prevent local leaders or law enforcement from having or using the tools necessary to prevent crime. It is not rational.

With only these few points of your opinion noted above, I must therefore conclude Mayor Franklin, that your argument to remove a right of the citizens of The United States of America, a right written by the founding fathers in the Bill of Rights, is not rational, and therefore not valid to rational people.

Sincerely,

John Tycer Lewis