I must take issue with your opinion piece in support of President Obamas push to unilaterally enact “common sense” gun control measures. Although I do have issue with the usurpation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms there is more to the story than that.

Twice during his time in office the President ,and for the most part the Democratic party, have introduced into Congress the very same actions that he outlined in last weeks press conference and again at the “town hall” on CNN. Both times the restrictions were presented they were defeated by the Senate and House of Representatives elected by the people of their districts. These Senators and Representatives are sent to Washington by the people to vote on issues in the place of a general election wherein each issue is voted on individually by the people. This defines that what we have is known as a Representative Republic and not a Democracy as our form of government is commonly mistakenly thought of.

Many, most notably the President himself, demonize the National Rifle Association as having too much power to control the gun issue. One should stop for a moment and understand that the NRA is made up of the very same people who send their elected officials to Washington. It is not a small group of nefarious men in a dark room plotting to do unspeakable things to everyone who do not vote the way they tell them to. I, and many other residents, elected officials and community leaders of Pearl River County, are the NRA. We are responsible, law abiding, productive men and women who understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was added by the States to provide a last resort to defend the Constitution and the Republic.

As a journalist you point out the First Amendment restrictions and compare them to those mentioned by the President. I submit to you that any assault on the Liberties guaranteed in the Constitution is more dangerous than the actions in which the control action is intended to prevent, as it erodes the very Liberty that all enjoy for a temporary sense of security. If the rights under the Second Amendment can so easily be reduced then by precedent how easily could other rights by changed?

For example, one restriction imposed by the President is that if a law abiding person is determined by a medical professional to be “mentally ill” they will be reported to the Department of Justice and not allowed to purchase a firearm. On the surface this seems like that common sense that is being sold. That is until the coding, diagnostic and reporting requirements of the ACA ( Obamacare ) are considered. Basically anyone prescribed an antidepressant will be required to be reported as mentally ill this becoming ineligible to purchase a firearm.

See part 2 in next Friday’s Item

Respectfully,
Benjie R. Wells
Poplarville