Our Man in Arlington

Wow!

I have been writing this column for more than two years. Until now, I figured it was read by a couple of dozen friends and relatives. Feedback consisted of a few pleasant comments in the grocery store and at community events around the county.

Until, that is, my recent column about the gun toting dudes who attended a Falls Church City Council meeting to oppose gun-control legislation. I immediately received an outpouring of vituperative e-mails from all over the country accusing me of almost every possible crime against humanity and the American Way.

My wife, Jean, who works in Richmond during the Virginia General Assembly sessions as an assistant to a member of the House of Delegates, assures me that my numerous e-mails are a mere drop in the bucket to the hundreds received in legislative offices whenever a gun bill is on the calendar. These folks are organized!

Many complained vigorously that I had characterized them as “thugs”, indicating to me that they hadn’t yet learned how to read. What I said, and I quote, was that they were “acting like simple thugs using the public display of guns to intimidate those who are simply trying to provide some safety in a violent world … .”

I was ordered to apologize. Well, no!

My statement that they were “acting” like thugs was akin to a parent’s simple statement when he sees a child dressed inappropriately that the child may be misunderstood as being something he is not.

I will accept the fact that those carrying guns into the meeting were polite, non-threatening, and even pretty good citizens for the most part. But in the very act of carrying guns into a hearing on a policy issue that they oppose they were “acting like thugs,” at least where I come from (South Louisiana). It is a simple truth, and I certainly will not apologize for that.

I was also criticized for treating the second amendment too lightly by expressing my support of the amendment based on a strict interpretation of the two hundred and seventeen year old amendment as allowing them to own single shot muzzle loaded rifles. So much for my attempt at humor. This is truly a humorless bunch.

So let me state my position more seriously. The second amendment is part of the Constitution, and I support that in the same way I strongly support the first amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. However, just as the first amendment does not give me the right to shout fire in a crowded theater, the second amendment does not prevent regulation of the use and ownership of weapons to promote public safety. This is widely recognized by legislative and judicial bodies throughout the county.

The opposition to almost all gun control legislation by those who use an overly broad interpretation of the second amendment is grossly irresponsible and, I strongly believe, contributes toward the remarkable level of criminal violence in this country. Would stronger controls on the use and ownership of guns eliminate this violence? No. But it would be a step in the right direction.