| PRPA
Access |
From Jack Lee, President,
PRPA:
THERE IS STILL HOPE!
Just
recently my grand-daughter, Meghan Pradko, was required to prepare and
present a speech for her 9th grade English class. The students were
allowed to select any subject about which they were passionate and that
others in the class wouldn’t know much about. The subject had to be
controversial where others could or would take the opposite side of the
issue. The purpose was a study in persuasive techniques. The speech was
to be approximately 4 minutes long and the written text had to be
pre-approved by the teacher before it was presented to the class (20 –
25 students).
Meghan lives in Franklin, Massachusetts. Her
subject was “ANTI-GUN CONTROL”. Neither of her parents are hunters or
shooters, however, they are Conservative. The family doesn’t own guns,
and the only times Meghan and her older sister have shot rifles has
been at summer camp or when they visit us during the summer. Both girls
are extremely interested in the U.S. government and no doubt will
pursue that interest in college.
Meghan sent me a copy of her
speech. She did the research herself, and being 600 miles away I had no
idea of the project or what it contained. I was so impressed with her
work that I wanted my PRPA friends to read it too. Here it is as she
presented it to her class. Maybe, even after what happened in November,
THERE IS STILL HOPE for the good old U.S.A.!
Meghan Pradko Mr. Koch English 9-F 6 December 2008 Anti Gun Control Speech
The phrase “gun control” can mean many things. It can be a
ban on specific or all types of weapons. It can be law
restricting where guns can be carried. It can be regulations
prohibiting certain or all citizens from owning guns. Regardless
of what form it takes, gun control in the United States of America
takes away your constitutional right to own guns; the Second Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
The Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "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." To
infringe means "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the
rights of another," which is exactly what gun control does.
The Second Amendment would not have survived all
these years if it was not a valuable and key amendment to the
Constitution. May I point out its value by referencing a place
and time when people did not have the right to bear arms due to gun
control. In Germany, total gun control was established in
1938. From 1939 to 1945, about 13 million people, unable to
defend themselves against the cruel Nazis, were exterminated in the
horror known as the Holocaust. Throughout history, there are many
other examples of this. Every genocide has been preceded by gun
control. By establishing continually more restrictive gun
control, the people of the United States may be launching themselves
towards a similar fate.
May I also stress
that when gun control is implemented, the only people who lose their
right to keep and bear arms are law-abiding citizens. Criminals
are just that: criminals. They do not obey the law and thus would
not obey gun control laws. So logically, if totally restrictive
gun control laws were established, the only people with guns would be
criminals. This certainly does not paint a nice mental
image. I would like to quote Senator John McCain. "We have
a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are
prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of
law-abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting
crime. Law-abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their
rights because of criminals- criminals who ignore gun control laws
anyway." Is it fair that you, as American citizens, should have
to give up your rights to own guns and use them to defend yourselves,
merely because other people do not have enough morals or integrity to
follow the law?
Some of you may be thinking
that regardless of laws permitting or prohibiting guns, crimes
involving guns still happen. And they do. It’s an awful
thing. But realistically, there is no way we can ever completely
rid the world of crime. So we do our best. While we may not
be able to prevent crime, we can fight it. Enlisting responsible
gun owners to help can be part of that fight. Here’s an example
when such a gun owner saved many lives. On December 17, 1991, in
Anniston, Alabama, a man named Thomas Glenn Terry was enjoying dinner
with his wife at a local restaurant. There were about twenty
customers and employees in the restaurant at the time. Three men
burst in and, after collecting everyone’s wallets and jewelry, began
herding everyone into a walk-in cooler. Terry was attempting to
escape out a back door to get help when one of the gunmen discovered
him. Because he had a gun, Terry was able to shoot that gunman
and a second while the third one fled. If Terry hadn’t had a gun,
everyone in the restaurant would have most likely been killed.
Yes, guns are dangerous. But danger is part of life. Rather
than taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and making them victims
of crime, guns should be allowed for self-defense as well as sporting
purposes. That way, we will all be safer. Remember, a gun is an
inanimate object. It cannot think or act by itself. It’s only when a
criminal or such an immoral person decides to use a gun unlawfully does
it become dangerous.
|
|