Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Laramie Boyd
2013 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved

        Kathleen Parker, a Washington Post columnist, delivered some to-the-point quotes regarding the gun control controversy raging in America nowadays. She says she grew up in a home with guns. Her father was a lawyer, judge, and WWII veteran who said "There is only one law in the land that I would break. I will never register my guns." As he saw it, "With guns, we are citizens; without them, we are subjects." He added, " Don't point a gun at anyone unless you're going to shoot and if you shoot, aim to kill." Without a doubt, anyone who is fooled into believing that citizens without guns naturally implies that the government would be without them also, belies the well documented truths of totalitarian regimes and the all powerful dictatorships throughout history.
        In the Old West, nary a cowpoke would boldly mosey down the street without a six-shooter brandied in his holster. But more recently, Ronald Reagan felt that there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying a loaded weapon." And Kathleen Parker added, "The old Reagan would say there's no reason a citizen needs an assault weapon or a magazine that can destroy dozens of people in minutes." She also reminds us that the call to ban assault weapons and limit magazines "won't solve the problem, but it might limit the toll. One would imagine having to stop one's rampage to reload rather breaks the spell." This approach seems to be gaining momentum with some lawmakers even though it's very difficult for them to determine the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment. There were very few assault weapons way back then, but they are nevertheless arms. And of course one sticking point that may never go away is that the president and his family, and ex-presidents, have armed Secret Service agents "protecting" them. Are those people any more valuable than the families of regular citizens who want to protect themselves? If you say yes, I believe you have a lot of explaining to do.
        Ms. Parker recalls that some members of the Black Panthers of the 1960's carried weapons with them in public, wherever they went, to make the point that "Blacks needed guns to protect themselves in a country that wasn't quite ready to enforce civil rights," a gun problem the whites didn't seem to have. She equates this philosophy with that of those "white, rural male defenders of gun- rights who oppose any regulation." I doubt anything close to this is the reason most gun-rights activists feel they have a right to "keep and bear arms." I believe they oppose regulating a Constitutional right, let alone superseding one. Plainly Kathleen Parker is off-base in making this suggestive comparison to the Black Panther Party of the 60's, which, in one Party member's speech, gave the conditions he required to have "30 Police stations blown up, 1 southern governor, 2 mayors, and 500 cops, dead."