I am writing in response to an anonymous editorial that appeared on Page 3 of this Wednesday's Spectrum. In my opinion, the knee-jerk, anti-gun rhetoric espoused in the article was every bit as irresponsible as the creative Florida truck salesman offering a free AK-47 with the purchase of every new vehicle. As the writer points out, would-be buyers must comply with all pertinent State and Federal regulations in order to actually claim their complimentary firearms, and they must do so through normal channels, by taking a voucher to a licensed dealership.
The writer then goes on to complain about how "gun laws in Florida are obviously too lenient" and to lament the fact that "taking on any constitutional amendment, especially any of the first 10, is a daunting task and one that almost never changes anything." I was puzzled by that sentiment. Does the writer actually think that "taking on" the Bill of Rights would be desirable, let alone a reasonable response to a promotion that has not, in fact, actually resulted in any wrongdoing? The writer gives twin hypothetical scenarios of a sniper and a wayward bullet killing a child, but mere hypothetical possibilities can hardly justify doing away with rights that have been enumerated in this country for more than two centuries, largely without incident.
The esteemed men who founded our Republic made our Constitution difficult to change for a reason, and the rhetorical blustering in the article is a perfect example of why they did this. Just because there is a risk of someone doing something irresponsible doesn't justify massive governmental intrusion into the business of those who aren't, or don't plan to.
Granted, the issue of firearms and the Second Amendment tends to arouse strong emotions on account of the particular danger presented. But the underlying issue is the same, regardless of the right in question. There will always be bad actors, those who would abuse the rights we enjoy as Americans. And I would be the first to tell you that they should face the consequences of doing so. But why should the vast majority of Americans who are law-abiding citizens give up their rights because of the misdeeds of the few, or worse, because of the mere possibility of misdeeds?
Too much of our domestic policy today is motivated by fear; from electronic strip-searches at airports, to the banning of alcoholic energy drinks, to overzealous gun regulations that punish those who have done, and in all likelihood, will do nothing wrong. Indeed, it is imperative that we exercise our rights responsibly,taking care to respect those of others. (After all, my rights end where yours begin.) Personal responsibility is undoubtedly more difficult than simply letting the government decide what is and is not acceptable conduct, but it is one of the surest safeguards against tyranny. If the Bill of Rights is to mean anything at all, every citizen must take responsibility for their exercise of it, and not abrogate that responsibility to someone who claims they know what's best for you, better than you do.
--
Paul T. Fusco-Gessick
J.D. Candidate '11
Buffalo Law School
The State Univ. of N.Y.
Letters to the Editor are not edited by The Spectrum. They are run as-is.
