Letter: Mike Tuttle, Lovettsville

Editor: This is in response to recent letters regarding the Lovettsville Town Council proclamation supporting the Second Amendment:

Ms. Keefe had an issue with the council making a proclamation supporting the residents’ Second Amendment rights. She claimed that the proclamation was controversial and polarizing and that she would be compiling a list of the past four years proclamations. Additionally, she claimed that the “feeling of safety in our town … is being lessened.” While she may be right about the fact that this became controversial, because of people who are anti-Second Amendment, I rather like the idea that our Town Council supports its residents’ state and federal constitutional rights—many of the “we-know-what’s-best-for-you” folks down in Richmond certainly don’t. When she looks back at past proclamations, she will see that the council has passed such things as naming a day after someone and temporarily remaining the town “Capitalsville.” I’d say supporting our state and federally guaranteed rights is a more worthy endeavor; though admittedly I was supportive of the “Capitalsville” proclamation. Maybe she is unaware of the facts that localities that are supportive of the Second Amendment have lower rates of crime, and that concealed carry holders violate firearm laws at the same (low) rate as law enforcement officers. That should help you feel safer in our town Ms. Keefe.

Kris Consaul made a claim that a “local gun dealer” threatened members of the Town Council. Also, Consaul stated, “civic discourse can’t happen at the end of a gun,” “the risk of speaking against the proclamation was too high,” and that supporters should “[b]e careful not to use Second Amendment to suppress the First.” Did said local gun dealer threaten the council members with a gun, or something more mild, like, “I won’t vote for you next time?” Likely it was more similar to the latter as I haven’t heard of any charges being filed; the claim was alarming in nature while at the same time, quite vague in details. Regarding the last three quotes, it’s really not the law-abiding gun owners who show up to support their rights that you have to be so worried about, it’s the violent criminals that they would defend you against; if you haven’t helped disarm them that is.

Anti-Second Amendment folks need to understand some things: 1. Recent Department of Justice statistics show that 72 percent of firearms used in crime have been obtained illegally. 2. There are plenty of laws that aren’t enforced, penalties that aren’t fully carried out and criminal sentences that are commuted. 3. “Assault weapon” bans don’t have any effect on violent crime (see the stats during the Clinton era ban). 4.“Gun free zones” are magnets to people with evil intentions—law-abiding gun owners aren’t carrying there, so they won’t be stopped immediately. 5. You cannot create a utopia where every gun is gone. And last, murderers are violating the highest of laws, so they won’t be deterred by others you create.

Mike Tuttle, Lovettsville

Leave a Reply