By the time you read this, our country will probably be mourning another mass shooting. At this writing, we are at the 200 mark with about 125 days into the calendar year.
A recent Fox News poll shows that the American people overwhelmingly support gun violence prevention measures: 87%, background checks for guns; 81%, enforce existing gun laws; 81%, raise legal age to 21 to buy all guns; 80%, require mental health checks on all gun buyers; 80%, flag people dangerous to self; 77%, require 30-day waiting period; 61%, ban assault weapons; 45%, encourage more citizens to carry guns to defend against attackers.
When I call Rep. Chuck Edwards’ office, a staffer says he supports the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. For too long, the Second Amendment has been cherry-picked by politicians like Edwards and Sens. Ted Budd and Thom Tillis, who value their “A” National Rifle Association rating over the voices of the American people.
Here is what the Second Amendment says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There is no well-regulated militia when it is easier to get a weapon of war, the AR-15, than it is to get a driver’s license or a voter ID. We don’t live in a free state when this distorted view of the Second Amendment now threatens our First Amendment rights to assemble in our public places.
Call the congressman at 202-225-6401 and demand that he listen to the people and not the NRA and support the Office of Gun Violence Prevention Act, HR 1699, HR 698, the Assault Weapons Ban Act and HR 660, Ethan’s Law.
— Linda Pannullo
4 thoughts on “Letter: Edwards should listen to the people, not NRA”
Thank you, Linda. Well stated and backed up with facts.
The best defence against mass public shootings is a Constitutionally-protected armed citizen.
The constitution says nothing about every citizen being able to own assault rifles… or any gun for that matter. What part of “well organized militia” (a standing army) do you not understand?
If armed citizens helped protect against mass shootings the United States would have the fewest mass shootings but the opposite is true.
Your interest in the United States Constitution is commendable, even if unsophisticated. The United States Supreme Court definitively ruled (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 2008) that law-abiding individuals do indeed have a Constitutionally-protected right to possess and carry personal firearms. Furthermore, I, like all Americans, have a right to self-defense that precedes the Constitution. And, thankfully, this prior right is recognized and protected by the American charter when it states that this inherent right “shall not be infringed” upon by the government. The scores of would-be victims of mass public shooting by criminals continue to be grateful, as I have shown above.