By Ken Piper

The lead headline in my local newspaper read, “How Safe Are Our Campuses?” That was Tuesday, April 17, the day after the terrible shooting at Virginia Tech.

I suppose it’s human nature to want to feel safe, but when will we realize that we are never safe? That’s not to say we should live our lives in fear. Nor should we walk around believing that nothing bad will ever happen and that all people are good. Truth is, there are some very sick and evil souls in the world. When such a person wants to kill and is willing to die in the act, there isn’t much anyone can do about it.

The anti-gun crowd would have you believe you would be safe if guns were taken from us. It didn’t take them long to use the Virginia Tech shooting to say that if people didn’t have guns, the tragedy wouldn’t have happened.

I support their right to have an opinion, and even their right to express it. I just wish the right to express an opinion carried a little more responsibility.

Speaking of opinion, I try not to listen to national news. That’s not to say I don’t try to keep up with current events; I simply avoid listening or watching national news because it is laced with so much opinion that it’s hard to tell where the story stops and the opinion begins. So for entertainment, I sometimes turn to sports radio. I turned on the local station for my drive home from work the day after the Virginia Tech shooting. I was sickened by the words I heard only seconds after hitting the “on” button.

John Feinstein, a columnist for the Washington Post, was a guest on the Paul Feinbaum show to talk about a column he wrote concerning Don Imus. Of course, he took the opportunity to express his anti-gun sentiments and proclaimed, “When will people in this country learn that it is time to take the guns away from the people?”

I almost wrecked the car.

But that wasn’t all. The next four callers then proceeded to tell the radio audience what the Second Amendment means – and none of them got it right. Some were for gun ownership, some against, but all were supremely confident they knew exactly what the Second Amendment meant.

Feinbaum then closed the segment with a statement that people could debate forever and we would never know what the founding fathers really meant in the Second Amendment.

I’d like to remind Paul Feinbaum that, as a journalist, he should realize that even though it isn’t possible to have the founding fathers here to ask their opinions on the matter, it is still possible to read their other thoughts to get a better picture of what they were thinking when they wrote that amendment.

In other words, I would encourage those four callers to Paul Feinbaum’s show of April 17 to do a little bit of reading on the subject. If you read the writings of the founding fathers, you don’t need my opinion or anyone else’s to know exactly what the Second Amendment means.

I suggest you start with the writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson.

Following are a few quotes from Mr. Jefferson on the subject of firearms ownership:

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).” – Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353 “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.” – Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:34

These do not sound like the words of a man who wanted firearms only for the purpose of a militia, as the first caller claimed. Nor are the words of a man who felt a gun’s only use was to get food, as Mr. Feinstein claimed.

But let’s say for just a second that Feinstein got his wish and guns were outlawed. What makes him or any of the other anti-gunners think they can keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Drugs like cocaine and marijuana are illegal in the United States, yet they are readily available in our streets and schools.

Further, anti-gunners refuse to look at facts; they would rather play on emotions following tragedies to make their arguments. Yet every time a municipality empowers people with gun rights, crime goes down. And guns are used in defense against criminals four times more often than used by criminals. But you won’t see that on the news.

You might not know this, but there was another tragic shooting on a campus just down the road from Virginia Tech. This one occurred on Jan. 16, 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law.

In that tragedy, the shooter killed three people. But before he could do any more damage, two students ran to their vehicles, retrieved personal firearms (against school rules) and subdued the murderer, preventing any more killings.

In the end, we’re all responsible for our own safety. Whether that means carrying a concealed firearm, taking a self-defense class, or just refuting the baseless and emotion-based efforts to take away our guns, safety requires responsibility.

In addition to exercising your right to bear arms, you should arm yourself with another powerful weapon: facts.

Anti-gun people, just like anti-hunters, use emotion and fear to sway public opinion. The only way to counter emotional arguments is with facts. Have a little fun and learn some history by looking up the writings of the founding fathers.

I leave you with one of my favorite quotes from patriot Patrick Henry:

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.