Re July 29 column, “Suicides, Myrtle Beach area police shootings: High cost of unthinking loyalty to Second Amendment,” by Issac Bailey.
I strongly disagree with your premise that changing the Second Amendment will somehow reduce the number of suicides in our nation. I have personally had the experience of the aftermath of suicide by close people, three times in the last 10 years.
In all three case these, people used a firearm, and yes, it is absolute in most cases. However, I also know that a person that has made the real decision to take their own life is just as absolute to see it through. The tool or process is just a matter of fact. Your own statistics show this 49% of the time.
You then go all over the map with health care accessibility, to illegal drug dealers feeling the need to defend themselves while operating and engaging in illegal activities. With all respect, I will not engage that elementary reasoned argument at this time.
My argument is more from a pro-Second Amendment platform. Standing on this platform, I will not waiver in my opinion; neither would our Founding Fathers.
The Second Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution for very specific reasons and it shall not be infringed. Period. The so called “loop hole” that allowed Dylann Roof to purchase his firearm was actually the failure of the federal government to assure an acceptable timeframe to verify an application for purchase through the National Instant Check System, (NICS).
Please note the word “instant.”
The state of South Carolina has placed a five business day period in which the federal government can deny an applicant if that person is originally flagged for further inspection. The federal government failed in that process as regards Roof. South Carolina realizes that beyond that time frame, a federal government might deny somebody based on race, creed, or religion, or in the case of political affiliation, as Lois Learner has proved with the denial of a tax status while in the IRS.
This in and of itself is the perfect example of our Second Amendment rights being necessary to defend ourselves from all intruders, including a tyrannical government.
You then state that guns have created more harm than stopping crimes while in the hands of law-abiding citizens. This is absolutely false and is statistically available by stats gathered by many organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police.
You don't really advocate taking guns away, so I won't bring statistics of England and Australia into argument, as they have taken all guns from the hands of their subjects (not citizens). I also know for a fact that, not by emotion but by deductive reason, Bob Grabowski and my three dead friends would agree with me, as they were all Second Amendment advocates.
I have thought about this subject alot, as did they. To call us unthinkingly loyal to the Second Amendment is an insult. I think, therefore I believe in the Second Amendment.
The writer lives in Myrtle Beach.