Rights do exist

Dear Editor,

Re: "Straw vote opposes Christensen gun law proposal," Feb. 1, 2007:

To answer why a law is needed to regulate the other laws: A "RIGHT," akin to breathing, requires neither permission nor acceptance to exist. It exists, and is usually most evident, while being violated. Rights predate government.

Please note:

1] The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled the police are not responsible for the safety of the individual citizen. Since the police are under no obligation to protect you nor your family, a journalist worth his salt might want to ask anti-gun legislators why they refuse to allow a citizen to carry the tools necessary to protect him/her self?

2] Criminals and wackos -- by definition -- do not, will not, and cannot be made to obey any law (even in those townships which ban guns, surprising as this may seem).

3] Guns are inanimate objects. Inanimate objects -- by definition -- do not and cannot cause crime. "If guns cause crime then pencils cause spelling mistakes and spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat." -- author unknown but thanked

4] To paraphrase Samuel Adams: Even if I should desire to do so, I could not give up my God-given rights.

Since the definition of "infringed" is the same today as it was in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified, exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" do anti-gun legislators fail to grasp?

I'm not a constitutional scholar, therefore I offer a quote from someone who is:

"Foolish liberals who want to read the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." -- Alan Dershowitz (certainly no right-wing gun nut)

Respectfully,

Lee McGee

Jeanerette, La.