More News

I had the opportunity to read [state Sen. Ulysses Currie's Aug. 21 letter to the editor, "Ulysses Currie: Court decision on guns blind to consequences"] regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the District [of Columbia] vs. Heller case. I found [his] opinions on private gun owner ship deeply disturbing. I understand [his] need as an elected representative of the people to take some sort of action to curb crime and violence. However, when you consider enforcing a prohibition of firearms, as the District of Columbia has done since 1976, there are a few points you must take into consideration.

Historically speaking, the concept of prohibitions hasn't worked. For example, the prohibition of alcohol that was passed by the federal government in 1920, lasting 13 years. The total prohibition of alcohol resulted in a highly profitable black market for liquor and beer, and fueling one of the greatest crime waves in U.S. history. Cities such as Chicago were dominated by mobster influence that was directly funded by the profits from rum running, bootlegging and operating speak-easies.

Similarly, the U.S. government has been enforcing a prohibition on illicit drugs for decades now. Yet, in spite of spending over $40 billion a year to fight the "War on Drugs," a recent survey by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that drugs continue to be widely available to America's high school students.

In spite of the District of Columbia's 32-year prohibition on firearms, they have consistently ranked among the worst cities in the country for gun violence and murders. What we find is a disarmed law-abiding populace, plagued with an underworld of gangs that don't seem to have any more difficulty in getting guns as they do getting drugs. Instead of resorting to a prohibition of firearms, we should focus on ensuring that violent criminals remain behind bars instead of turning them loose on society to become repeat offenders.

Secondly and most importantly, the true purpose of the Second Amendment was not only to ensure that the people could protect themselves but to preserve the people's ability to overthrow the government if it became necessary. Let us not forget that our forefathers were in fact traitors, who were rebelling against English rule. Our Constitution, which was written just after our forefathers had spent seven years throwing off the rule of a tyrannical British government, was deliberately designed with a system of check and balances. The most critical of these "checks" was to ensure the government would be held accountable to the people, by preserving the people's ability to overthrow said government.

Jonathan Ramsey, Mechanicsville