Guns, to control or not?

Dear Editor:

The recent elementary school tragedy in Connecticut has brought the issue of gun control into the mainstream once more. It would seem that some form of gun control is likely to be forthcoming. But what form of control? Tighter background checks of those applying for gun ownership? Certainly, one would question the wisdom of issuing a permit to someone who is known to have serious mental problems, and particularly those on psychotropic drugs.

We must not, however, allow our emotions to interfere with our processing of the facts. The facts are that the rate of major crime has gone markedly down in this country over the past several years as the rate of gun ownership has gone up (check the FBI statistics), and that the areas where guns have been restricted the most have the highest major crime rates (murder and rape). Look at the crime rate in Chicago, for instance. Compare the crime rates in countries like England before and after guns were confiscated and you will find that the crime rates skyrocket after guns are removed from the public.

Our Second Amendment was put in place for a good reason. American citizens were to be armed not only to protect against foreign aggression (Japanese emperor Hirohito said that he did not dare attack the American mainland because he knew that the people were armed), but also as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, even to protect against our own government gone bad.

It's not about gun control, it's about control period. There is, in fact, a group of people who are intent on control of the entire world population, and in order for them to be successful they must disarm the American people. If the Second Amendment is abolished, then America is finished.

If our nation is to be truly free, then we must be allowed to protect ourselves and our children as we see fit. This includes the right for teachers, if they so desire, to be armed. If your child is in a classroom when an "active shooter" arrives, do you want the children to all be helpless targets, or would you prefer that a teacher be allowed to intervene with a firearm or perhaps a taser? Should all teachers be armed? No. There are many who would prefer to not be. But there are a number who would choose to protect themselves and their students and other personnel by being armed. Legislation is pending to allow this.

There have been many, many instances of shootings being "nipped in the bud" by armed bystanders, but one rarely finds these reported in the major news media. Why? Because most of the major news media are owned by people with a globalist mindset. The day after the Connecticut episode a man in San Antonio, Texas, shot his ex-girlfriend and then chased the restaurant diners into the theater next door. Before he could resume shooting there, he was shot four times by an off-duty police officer. Trained citizens have done the same on many occasions.

It has been said that "an armed society is a polite society," and this is true. You would probably be surprised by how many folks right here in Nevada have had concealed carry permits for years. They appreciate the freedom that our Constitution provides for them to protect themselves and their loved ones. They know that although the police are here "to serve and protect," they cannot prevent shootings, only check out the crime scene and try to find out "who did it."

I am a pacifist and a "peacemaker," but I believe that we should be on guard against any attempts by the federal government to abridge our freedoms regarding gun possession. Any of these restrictions would be the first of many, only to end in a total gun confiscation, leaving us at the mercy of those in CONTROL.

Contact your legislators about this important issue. I have.

Dr. Ron Jones

Nevada