|
| | | | |
|
|
Guns in the Workplace, With
Response
From: Chris Brose <mailto:krleese@cox-internet.com>
To: glidewell@sptimes.com
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 9:50 PM
Subject: guns in the workplace
re: http://www.sptimes.com/News/102801/Columns/Workplace_bad_enough_.shtml
Dear Mr. Glidewell,
I just read your column on guns, and to be honest, it's really hard not to come
to the conclusion that you're without a clue when it comes to the Constitution,
and to issues involving guns. I serve in the Marine Corps, and seven times I
have taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I take that oath seriously, and I've
taken the trouble to actually read the Constitution several times, including
the dry bits. I'd like to take this opportunity to correct your understanding
on a few things.
Just because you choose to refrain from telling your employer exactly what you
think of him (her) does NOT mean that you haven't the constitutional right to
do so. You have both the constitutional right to speak your mind AND no law
prohibiting you from doing so. I, on the other hand, am restricted by the Uniform
Code of Military Justice from saying anything I want to whomever I want, and
have only a limited constitutional right to free speech.
Likewise, any other limitation that you agree to while working for a particular
employer is strictly voluntary. You can choose to leave any time you've had
enough -- again, in contradistinction to me.
Your twisting of the Constitution to mean something it doesn't say is offensive
to me. It shows a lack of respect and regard for the Constitution itself, and
a lack of understanding about what the thing actually says. Spreading ignorance
about the Constitution is hardly something a journalist should aspire to.
The Constitution, your loopy interpretation notwithstanding, is not intended
for the protection of your having a good time. It most definitely does mention
the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I know you probably
can't see past your anti-gun bias, but life and liberty (and the pursuit of
happiness) is what motivates those who legally carry concealed handguns. It's
good to come home from the workplace at night, still breathing. However, if
some loony comes charging into a workplace, you apparently would rather have
them killed than be able to defend themselves and others.
Seven people died in just such an incident in Massachusetts. A murderer came
charging into a workplace and shot them. Would it surprise you to know that
the third victim was in possession of a concealed carry permit? Unfortunately
for him, the permit was issued by New Hampshire, and Massachusetts law didn't
permit him to have a gun on him. (Say! That sounds a lot like the law you are
endorsing!) If he'd have been in possession of his gun, perhaps he could have
shot the murderer. (Or are you against people "taking the law into their
own hands" and defending themselves?) Maybe five of those seven victims
would be alive right now. And maybe not, but at least they'd have had a fighting
chance to live. (Remember? LIFE, liberty...?)
A couple last things. People in law enforcement and a few other fields routinely
carry guns with them at work. That means guns in the workplace. If what you
feared had any basis in reality, we'd hear regular reports of carnage at the
police station, or some such (because obviously, having guns in the workplace
invites disaster). And if you try to say that police are trained, implying that
they are more responsible that regular civilians, then you obviously have no
idea how responsible people are who have concealed carry permits. And you probably
don't know because you don't want to know.
And finally -- I don't know what your attitude is about the prospect of guns
in airline cockpits, but that certainly would constitute guns in the workplace.
If you support the idea, please step back for a minute and recognize your hypocrisy.
And if you don't support them, let me ask you this: if you could turn back the
clock to September 10th and give every pilot in the country a gun and the training
to use it, would you do it? If so, you
recognize that guns in the workplace can be a very good thing. If not, 6000+
lives are apparently a part of the price you are willing to pay to advance your
anti-gun agenda.
Sincerely,
Chris Brose, Sgt., USMC
krleese@cox-internet.com
P.S. If you have any desire to respond, I would like to hear from you.
His response:
Yep Chris, and I also served in the Marine Corps, five years including six months
in First Force Recon in Vietnam, protecting, I believed, the rights of people
to have different political opinions. You might also read Article Five of the
constitution.
Semper Fi
Jan Glidewell
My response:
Different political opinions are certainly protected. However, you espoused
some views that seem to ignore reality, and I challenged them. To plead the
5th when pinned down on your views, after publishing your views, is less than
impressive at best, and is probably intellectually dishonest. You might also
read Article Two of the Constitution.
Chris Brose
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.
|
|
|
