Letter to the Editor

Court should have ruled 9-0

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Dear editor:

My friend Kelly knows me pretty well, but let me refine a few thoughts, as to leave no doubts where I stand on our freedom.

Actually, I wasn't exactly thrilled with the Supreme Court's gun decision, for two reasons: First of all, the vote should have been 9-0, not the 5-4 squeaker it was.

Secondly, there should never have been a ban in the first place. Our 2nd Amendment is clear as glass on this matter, and not just on the part that reads, "Shall Not Be Infringed."

The "Militia" is NOT the National Guard, or some state-organized posse. When we research it, we find the word "militia" defined by our founding fathers themselves as "all able bodied men over the age of 17, capable of bearing arms to defend freedom in chaotic times."

OK, that was then and this is now, but "militia" still means the same thing today. Look it up in any current Webster's, 1776 or 2076, the militia is STILL the Minutemen, you and I.

The D.C. ban was enacted because "something had to be done about the crime situation there." So, as in New York, Detroit and a few other places, Washington, D.C., chose to disarm the decent citizens, much to the delight of the vermin who could rob, rape and kill without fear of being shot by the homeowners.

It is well documented that cities with the toughest gun laws have the highest crime rates. Does gun control work? You bet it does, if you're one of the bad guys.

Naw, Kelly, I don't advocate personal nuke possession! But I do favor limiting honest folks from owning automatic weapons. A good friend of mine in Arizona owns three machine guns (Class three licenses and registered with the feds), and I would trust him with my life, more than that, with the life of my family, and more than THAT, with the life of our country, which is more than I can say for the majority of the people I know.

The main reason I oppose weapons limits for honest folks, is the gray area it creates. The Democrats are looking to pass H.R. 1022, which would ban nearly 20 rifles they deem to be "assault rifles."

If it were to pass, you can bet your next paycheck there'll be 20 more the following session. Before long, they'd find a way to declare your old 30-30 deer riffle an "assault weapon" as well.

After all, you COULD technically "assault" someone with it, couldn't you? From Feinstein to Bloombergh, I know how the liberal mind works. Today your AR-15, tomorrow your 22.

I personally own an AK-47 among my collection. So what? It's legal and registered. Do I need an AK-47? Probably not. Would I surrender it? Never. You don't make comprises with those bent on taking your freedoms to further enhance their power.

If you're reading this letter and think as many others do, that "For goodness sake, they aren't going to try to take everyone's guns," do take the time to recap New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

They stormed people's homes, pushed innocent citizens around, confiscated every gun they could find, tossed them all into conex's, many not even tagged, where they rusted beyond repair, and most owners NEVER got them back.

Don't tell ME it couldn't happen here. We all saw it on national television. Ever seen the movie "Red Dawn?" If you haven't, you need to.

I don't have a problem with background checks either, and for the record, all new guns ARE ballistically printed, and the gunshop provides you with the empty case that was fired at the factory. It's "Big Brother's" way of saying, "We know who you are and where you live (see the opening scenes of "Red Dawn").

While I don't have a problem with background checks, I DO have a problem with the record keeping that follows. The government doesn't track child molesters as thoroughly as they track gun owners, which is actually understandable. Sex perverts don't pose any threat to dictator wannabes.

Ironic. Exactly 40 years ago, I was issued a .45 automatic, a M-14 rifle and a 90mm bazooka with all the rockets I wanted. Our government paid me to kill, main and destroy with some "noble effort" to secure Vietnam's freedoms, which never happened after all was said and done. We had machine guns, flamethrowers, mortars, hand grenades, you name it.

Today, in our OWN country, the supposed "land of the free," they don't trust us with a 22, without paperwork, red tape, great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Sorriest of all, while they seek to disarm the honest, they REFUSE to punish the evil, creating a mountain of loopholes that allow killers and perverts to plea-bargained right back out onto the streets.

They'd rather attack the manufacture than the perpetrator. And because the hoods have "rights", the left has deemed it easier to go after law aiding gun owners. Taking guns from people is their solution to protecting us all from the bad ones.

Keep in mind, that this is also the same Supreme Court that within 48 hours of a narrow gun decision, voted 5-4 AGAINST the death penalty for child molesters, so it's obviously OK for these sickos to hang around playgrounds, live in our neighborhoods and sodomize our kids and grand kids whenever the opportunity arises. There are INDEED judges on that court that need to be removed, and you can bet they aren't the ones Reagan appointed!

Kelly Everitt and I have always been able to agree to disagree, and we can drink coffee together while we're doing it, and of course, we're brother Marines.

But Kelly old buddy, I don't think liberal or conservative values should come into play within the realm of the Supreme Court. Their job is to administer and judge via our Constitution, not re-legislate from the bench.

Right or left, the four who could not follow their own oath to protect and defend, do NOT deserve to sit on that court. Period. Yes, you might say I'm slightly to the right!

As for me? From my cold dead fingers, amigo. From my cold dead fingers.

Mike Bradbury