Letter: NRA opinion rebuttal | NevadaAppeal.com

Letter: NRA opinion rebuttal

by C. Knapp

On the Feb. 2 Opinion page, Susan Paslov engages in the very sort of disinformation campaign which she falsely accuses the National Rifle Association of waging.

She spends about a quarter of her polemic trashing the NRA, apparently

because she just doesn’t like us. She then directly states that we misrepresent the Second Amendment, neglecting to note the militia clause is merely a statement of the framers’ preference, and that the “right of the

people” clause, an independent clause, states what the (at the time)

proposed central government would not be allowed to circumscribe.

The framers had very justified apprehensions about concentrating the means of force in the central government.

She speaks confidently of 19th century militias; the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and ratified in the 18th century.

The National Guard organizations are not state military forces, much less militias. The Guard is wholly part of the U.S. military, per the National Guard and Reserve Act. The Guard is almost totally funded by the Department of Defense, and Guard personnel can be ordered anywhere, anytime, by DOD without state governors being able to do anything about it (ref. Perpich vs.

DOD).

She claims that we quote James Madison out of context; Federalist numbers 29 and 46 refute this assertion. As to Patrick Henry, he was so mistrustful of government that he refused to support the proposed federal constitution because it allowed for powers of taxation; it is inconceivable that he believed government should have a monopoly of the means of force, and he did not.

The court decisions cited were reached by judges who, in my opinion, do

not believe that private citizens should have personal weapons, and which

judges were willing to use the power of their positions to advance this agenda. In this I believe they have been derelict in their duty to protect we the people from excesses of government power.

As to her hackneyed call for “reasonable” anti-gun regulations along the

lines of those applying to automobiles, allow me to point out that if the purpose of automobile licensing and registration were to inhibit or prohibit the ownership and use of private automobiles, those regulations would not, to say the least, be supported by the public. The comparison is both glib and specious, as are Mrs. Paslov’s various accusations.

CHARLES KNAPP

Carson City