Letter: Woodsmall proposes solution for gun violence

Graphic by Lori Deaton

On May 8, I’ve decided to support Steve Woodsmall to be the Democratic nominee for U.S. House of Representatives, District 11. Three good men are running. But I’ve decided to vote for Steve because he knows a lot.

He knows that a complex problem like gun violence is not solved by solely allowing guns to be carried in our schools and concealed in our pocketbooks and waistbands. Rather, this Navy veteran and Second Amendment advocate proposes a multipronged, common-sense solution that includes:
• Adequately funding school resource officers and other security measures.
• Tighter background checks.
• Increasing the legal age to purchase a firearm.
• Creating a gun violence restraining order (“red flag law”) that allows judges to temporarily confiscate guns from those deemed a danger to themselves or others. If guns don’t kill people, people kill people, let’s at least remove guns from those prone to kill others.
• A ban on the civilian sale of semiautomatic weaponry.

He knows that a healthy society is an economically productive society and that we should provide affordable health care to all our citizens. Every other democracy does this. Why not us?

He knows that as important as jobs are, they’re only part of the income inequality solution. Wage stagnation must be addressed if our economy — and middle class — is to be healthy again.

I feel like Steve Woodsmall knows me, shares my values and vows to work to restore those values to North Carolina. That’s why I’m voting for him in the Democratic primary on May 8. Probably sooner, as early voting begins April 19. If you share these values, please consider joining me in supporting Steve Woodsmall for U.S. representative, District 11.

Isn’t it time we got our democracy back?

— Stephen Advokat


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

About Letters
We want to hear from you! Send your letters and commentary to letters@mountainx.com

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

28 thoughts on “Letter: Woodsmall proposes solution for gun violence

  1. Enlightened Enigma

    Stephen, uhm no, you cannot have your democracy back, because it never was one …duh. The USA is a Constitutional Republic, unlike a democracy which is not mentioned in the Constitution.

    • luther blissett

      Oh, that tired old chestnut. A constitutional republic is a representative democracy.

      Support anybody but Mark Meadows, a man who has deluded himself into thinking he’s some kind of deputy president.

  2. Meredith Hunt

    Define “semi-automatic weaponry.” It certainly would include all pistols, and if not careful, perhaps even double action revolvers.

    • Jim Reeves

      Doesn’t matter, the statist collectivists want them all, never going to happen though. Criminals by their very nature will continue to buy and possess them no matter if a hundred laws are passed.

  3. Jim Reeves

    I suppose it will take ANOTHER Supreme Court decision, and / or civil war over gun confiscation to resolve this.

    • Peter Robbins

      Hold on. You mean to say that if the side you like wins, everything will be fine, but if it loses, there’s gonna be trouble? Again, I caution you: you’re not the President. And I mean that as a compliment.

      • Jim Reeves

        If the Courts refuse to uphold the Constitution, instead using political influence to make decisions, let them try to enforce it!

          • Phillip Williams

            Mr. Blissett, It is highly unlikely that the US Armed Forces would be employed in a campaign to forcibly round up weapons from the US citizenry. There are a number of reasons for this.

            First, the US Armed Services – the whole shebang – the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps – and all of their Reserve and National Guard components – number around 2,300,000 personnel. Bear in mind that a fairly small percentage of these are combat troops – infantry, artillery, aviation, etc – Most of them are support personnel – clerks, technicians, cooks, logistics specialists, drivers, mechanics, etc – and many of these men and women never touch a firearm after basic training except to qualify once in awhile at a pop-up range and to clean and maintain their weapons.

            Second, our forces are spread all over the place right now – and here in the States are concentrated on a few bases, mostly in the South – dozens of bases have been closed during the ongoing BRAC process – just as the regular forces have been cut drastically since the First Gulf War, and all branches have had to rely on the Reserve Components more than they ever have in our history. Even if augmented by all the Reserve and National Guard and Individual Ready Reserve, I wonder how many of these called-up personnel would be keen to engage their fellow citizens – to include neighbors, friends and family members?

            Third, think about the size of the Continental US. Do you honestly think that a force of 2 million people could effectively police that landmass – even with the assistance of state and local law enforcement? In 1968, we had over 530,000 US troops in-country – in addition to 820,000 South Vietnamese troops, 50,000 Koreans and 8,000 Aussies, and we slogged thru that mess from 1959 until 1973 in a land area a little smaller than the State of Montana.

            Fourth – every service man and woman swears an Oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Do you honestly believe that there would be overwhelming support in the Armed Services for engaging our own citizens to enforce a government action to delete or invalidate or override a Constitutional Amendment? It is interesting to note that the commissioned officer’s Oath does not contain the word “obey” anywhere in it – American military leaders are expected to disobey illegal, immoral or unethical orders if need be – and this is left to their own judgment. Some have carried out questionable orders in combat overseas, but I wonder how most of them would feel about fighting the people they are sworn to protect over any governmental decree or action that attacks the Constitution? In any case, I kind of doubt that 2 million souls are very gung-ho about engaging 200-plus million of their fellow citizens – even if those citizens were armed with hunting rifles and shotguns (and the good old home field advantage that has served the Afghans so well for centuries).

            So, speaking as a long-time Soldier, I would offer that the 2nd Amendment was not necessarily put in place to enable the US citizenry to put up a fight against their own military – but rather, to discourage this or any future government of the United States from seriously thinking about any such foolish undertaking as calling up and attempting to employ the US military against US citizens.

  4. Graeme N McGufficke

    Or you could just vote for Phillip Price. He has lived in the 11th Congressional District for 34+ years. He reclaims lumber from old barns and farmhouses and then makes it into cool furniture. Traveling the back roads of WNC for the past two decades Phillip has come to know the people and the land. And they know him well. Because Phillip is one of them. His story and his message resonates with the people of WNC, and Phillip is the only candidate who will attract progressive Democrats, conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans, and unaffiliated voters. Neither Woodsmall nor Donaldson will get anywhere near the level of support that Phillip Price will.

    So if you want Meadows to win in November, vote for either of the other candidates. But if you want a Democrat to represent the 11th Congressional District, then you have to vote for Phillip Price.

    For more info, price4wnc.org

  5. Stan Hawkins

    LOL, all this was very entertaining. Did Steve Woodsmall approve this message?

    But gee, how will I defend my homestead against the criminals with just my single shot 410 gauge if you take my semi’s?

    Folks, this is WNC – – get real.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.