From Jack Lee, President, PRPA:


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.