Apples and Oranges

To the Editor:

I love both apples and oranges and consume many of each. When asked which I like better, I will admit: While I’m eating a crunchy apple in the fall, I say, “apples”; however, if I’m slurping a juicy orange, then I prefer “oranges.”

They are too different to compare. Sure, both are popular, nutritious fruits, but that’s where the comparison ends. It serves no practical purpose to debate the virtues of one over the other, since it is a matter of taste. Why, for example, extol the merits of the Legend of William Tell, his bravery, and his expertise with a crossbow, as a response to an historical recounting of William of Orange and the “Glorious Revolution?” They don’t have much to do with one another. Apples and Oranges.

 Here in Newtown, the “gun debate” seems to be a similarly skewed and futile exercise. Reading the opinions, and listening to the clichéd arguments put forth by those clinging to the Second Amendment as if it were a life jacket, is frustrating. They hate the terms “regulation” and “control” – the unfortunate terminology attached to this controversy. They refer to the “government” and “tyranny” constantly in the same sentence.

 There is much blathering about “rights” and “law-abiding” citizens. Wasn’t the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook shooting a “law-abiding citizen” just before he opened fire on children and staff that day. Were any of the young men responsible for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Aurora, convicted felons before they snapped?

 Once and for all, there is no “slippery slope” to banning all firearms, to confiscating all legitimate weapons, to enduring a tyrannical takeover by the government. The colonists feared King George with good reason, so they kept their muskets loaded. Who will those who fear the government today be defending against? The US military? Will they be holed up in their homes shooting at their neighbor’s sons and daughters who are in the armed forces?

 The Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v Heller, 2008, is as meaningless as the results of a (bogus) AR-15 v Cruise Missile argument would be in 2013 as far as this discussion is concerned. Apples and Oranges. 

 Since there is no Prince William III v Louis XIV, conflict here, I believe all should stop playing Whigs and Tories as if it were a board game. It’s not about pro-gun or anti-gun. It’s about being reasonable and sensible without the fear-mongering, whining, and name-calling!

 I would like to invite gun owners and NRA members who are among the 74 percent who seem to agree with some practical and realistic changes in the gun laws, to please make your voices heard, and enter this exasperating dispute; share your views with your firearm-owning brethren, as well as with the other side, and use whatever lingo will be comprehensible to both. I mean we’re not Congress and The White House here! It’s really not that complicated, and it’s getting too emotionally combative. It’s really just Apples and Oranges.

Michael Luzzi

173 Boggs Hill Road, Newtown March 6, 2013

More stories like this: guns, Second Amendment
You must register or login to post a comment.