I always cut radio and television folks a little slack, as I understand the ratings component. That said, I caught a bit of John DePetro’s broadcast on 630 WPRO AM this past Friday, when he seemed to belittle callers for their notions about the Second Amendment. During the segment he attempted to define the use of firearms in the case of a government ordered forfeiture. In doing so he was pitting firearms proponents against the Rhode Island National Guard in a fictitious battle, and asking if they would fight our volunteer army in defense of their guns, a foolish and cheap assertion at best. Now it is understood that not everyone is a Constitutional scholar, but let me see if I can help you understand what your callers were trying to say as you ridiculed them on the air, Mr. DePetro.
The simple truth is that the Second Amendment does in fact have a very specific meaning, one which politicians and gun control advocates don’t like discussing. It doesn’t suggest war with our Armed Forces, but it does speak to a populace left defenseless against an unbridled government, one which has forgotten its oath and origin, and which has moved away from the Liberty for which it was formed. This nation is unique in that posture John, and dare I say, its free citizens understand some of the collateral negatives associated with the misuse of firearms by those of an evil design.
We are all mournful to the horrors of Newtown, and we are all searching for answers. However, fact and reason must rule the day if those answers are to be realized. The idea of “safety” is not related to the Second Amendment as written. In fact the violence which occurs during a mass shooting is symptomatic of much broader and complicated social manifestations, which our elected officials do not wish to be scrutinized for.
Understand something Sir, history dictates that oppression and genocide in the 20th Century were always preceded by the subjugation of the masses, very often by removing the means by which the masses might prevent that subjugation. To think that it will never happen here, is to be, well, naïve.
No one is suggesting armed confrontation with our brave men and women in uniform. But purposely misrepresenting a Constitutional Amendment for the sake of generating controversy, speaks volumes for our declining recognition and respect for the document, and just makes you part of the problem.