“I can't believe somebody would order from us again and do this…I still feel just absolutely in shock”- Eric Thompson
From www.topglock.com “ Eric Thompson, the owner of the Internet-based sporting goods and firearms retailer that has sold products to the shooters involved with the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University tragedies, says his unfortunate twist of fate is spurring him to take a more active role in protecting the public – especially young people – from future attacks.
Cho Seung-Hui used TGSCOM Web site www.thegunsource.com to purchase a Walther P22 firearm used in the Virginia Tech shootings last April. Just last week, Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people at Northern Illinois University on February 14th, received two 9mm Glock magazines and a holster he ordered from the TGSCOM Inc. web site www.topglock.com.
“I’ve spent the past weekend feeling absolutely terrible that my company has been linked to both of these heinous crimes,” said Eric Thompson, president of TGSCOM Inc. “I assume it is just an unfortunate coincidence, but I also believe I now have a special responsibility to do all I can to try and prevent further loss of life.”
Thompson says that while he is pro-Second Amendment, he would like to see an open and honest discussion from both sides of the controversial gun control debate. To help facilitate that discussion, Thompson is planning to launch www.GunDebate.com as a location where people can “have a dialogue on the best way to prevent future tragedy.”
This seems like a worthwhile idea, but I have an additional solution for Eric Thompson’s anguish. Stop selling semi-automatic pistols and high capacity magazines over the Internet? Does the Second Amendment guarantee every tortured soul with a credit card the right to assemble an arsenal of mass destruction. Or give Cho Seung-Hui the right to purchase hundreds of rounds of ammo through Ebay?
The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of a people to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Courts have gone back and forth over whether “a people” refers to state militias or to individuals. A case can be made either way by reasonable people, but we should not allow arms manufacturers to use the Second Amendment as an excuse to sell whatever they want unrestricted by common sense. When folks rightfully fear their children will be gunned down at school or the mall, it is time for some sanity and some courage from our politicians.
Mr. Thompson who lives in Green Bay with his wife and three children has said one thing we can all agree, “All four major presidential candidates are in Wisconsin today, and I’d love to hear some real solutions from them – not just rhetoric.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of a people to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
No, that's not what it says. It says "... the right of THE people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's "THE people," not "A people," as in "We THE people..." As in "The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." As in "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to THE PEOPLE."
The idea that the second amendment is about state militias is untenable on its face. (And if you look at the historical context it becomes even more untenable.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for gun control. The second amendment was written in a time when "arms" meant muskets, not Uzis and AK-47s. But to achieve gun control with intellectual honesty we have to amend the Constitution. Anything short of that undermines America's foundations. I'll be first in line to sign the petition. But as long as the Constitution stands as written I'll also be first in line to defend my neighbor's right to own as many assault weapons as he wants.
You are correct. "A" should be "the". I will leave it to a scholar (or is it the scholars) to determine whether an a or the the makes a substantive difference.
The Second Amendment has become a Macguffin used by gun manufacturers and the NRA to confuse the right to bear arms with their desire to be unregulated in any manner. We all accept that it should be illegal to buy shoulder mounted rockets which is clearly an "arm", but somehow allowing folks to purchase 500 bullets over the Internet is the cornerstone of freedom and would require a constitutional amendment to regulate.
I must admit I'm with Joe on his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - and I believe the Supreme Court has yet to rule on Ron's (i.e. the NRA's) v. Joe's interpretation. When I read about people firing AK47s at 2 year olds in the middle of the day in Glassell Park - a few miles from our community - I know that the power and threats of the gun lobby have replaced reason and sanity in our society and among our politicians. And today's front page LA Times article about now allowing people to bring loaded weapons into our National Parks just took me over the edge.
Mary Freeman
Post a Comment