Once again, for the third time, Rohn Robbins is wrong about Second Amendment (letter)
The Wednesday, Feb. 21, Vail Daily carried a column by Rohn Robbins about gun control (“Time to reinterpret the Second Amendment?”). It pretty much tracked what he said in the Vail Daily on Dec. 18, 2012. He even cut and pasted a passage from that prior piece — the one about prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions confirming an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. His latest effort doesn’t really have anything new to say.
To review our prior efforts, you can go to the Opinion section of the Daily and type in his name or mine. You’ll probably have to specify the date periods, which are Nov. 12, 2012, to Jan. 13, 2013, and June 3 to 19, 2014.
Despite what the U.S. Supreme Court has held, Robbins persists in a theory that there isn’t an individual right to have the means of protection. I wonder if he means that right-thinking people (liberals) should have a veto on what the courts have held.
And he continues to ignore what I pointed out before — that the Colorado Constitution is less ambiguous on the subject. Article 2, Section 13 says: “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”
A number of states have such provisions in their laws. But this is an inconvenient truth, as Al Gore would say. So Robbins doesn’t deal with it.
Another point: Robbins speaks of our present system of “unfettered rights” when it comes to guns. Is he serious? Do you know what you have to go through to buy a gun? Do you know what kind of restrictions there are on the kinds of gun you can buy?
But on to the practicalities: What about people who want to kill a lot of other people? If all the guns were gone, would the mass killings stop? The Las Vegas shooter, who was a licensed pilot, could have crashed a plane full of fuel into that crowd. What would the body count have been then?
We have recently seen that some mass murderers will use a truck to perpetrate mayhem. There are other ways, but I don’t want to give anyone ideas. You can probably think of a few.
That’s why those who call this a mental health issue are right. We’ve got to figure out why some people have an urge to kill a lot of other people. They will figure out a way to satisfy their desires, one way or the other. How do we divert them from their purpose?
Support Local Journalism
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User