MAILCALL

In response to "Right to Duel" on Feb. 19:

Vineet Tiruvadi's article "Right to Duel" is an excellent satire with an equally excellent point. It appears that this is a follow-up to his previous article, "Guns of tomorrow, laws of today," which received a barrage of angry comments from conservatives disgruntled at the very suggestion of replacing lethal weapons with non-lethal ones. As a conservative, I am rather disturbed at the level of obsession others of a like mind have with the gun issue. Many gun-loving conservatives would say criminals, when breaking the law, are no longer worthy of protection, and we are "better off without them." While I believe that keeping a lawful society is honorable and absolutely necessary, it is important we don't lose our grasp with the seriousness and finality of death. The second amendment protects our right to self-defense, not our right to take the lives of criminals. So what is really the main idea behind our right to self-defense? Is it to prevent crime or our self-righteous obsession with killing criminals?

Be the first to comment on this article!

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out