feedback from the overlords

Last night, I sent an email to my seven city council members, regarding their upcoming decision on whether or not to “opt-out” of Tennessee’s upcoming law changes allowing handgun carry permit holders to take their firearms into state, county, city, and other local parks. As of the time of this post’s publishing, I have received two responses, and the first was hardly impressive.
To begin with, it was an automatically-generated form letter, and while any response is arguably better than no response, it still had the dispassionate and disconnected feel of a bulk mailing. Furthermore, 80% of the email mostly consisted of reminding the recipient why he or she wrote this particular council member, and what the topic of disucssion was. Is that really necessary? However, it was the last paragraph that really irked me, and I will dissect it below:

I intend to support the opt-out resolution to continue the ban on guns in our city parks.

As I mentioned, this email was a form letter (the writer admitted to it in the first paragraph), and probably was set up to send itself out to anyone contacting the council member concerning the “opt-out” vote. As such, it would appear as though this particular council member had made her mind up before anyone had even had a chance to vocalize their opinions to her. Voting your conscience is all good and well, but is it not also the duty of an elected representative to represent her constituents? Mob-rule-by-proxy is certainly no way to run our (or any) country, but neither is sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.

As I see it, this restriction is not related to a citizen’s right to bear arms, …

Then, apparently, you need a vocabulary refresher. In this particular instance, the verb “bear” most-specifically means “to carry”, and the noun “arms” means “weapons, esp. firearms”. Far be it for me to call anyone a liar, but it would appear that this restriction you support would prevent me from carrying firearms in specific locations, and thus is directly related to “a citizen’s right to bear arms”. Funny, that.

…but rather is a reasonable restriction to ensure public safety and allow citizens to feel secure when they use the city’s public playgrounds, parks, greenways, and other areas.

*blink* Excuse me?
I honestly do not care about a person’s feelings – they are the individual person’s problem, and not mine. Furthermore, a person’s feelings should not be more important than a person’s rights, in any way, shape, or form. Criminals have shown a blatant disregard for “gun-free zones”, time and time again – how is disarmling law-abiding, safe, responsible, adult citizens supposed to make them “feel” secure? How is providing easy targets to criminals “ensuring public safety”? How is a 125-pound woman supposed to “feel” secure as she jogs along a secluded, out-of-the-way greenway, knowing that she was stripped of her means of self-defense by some city council, but also knowing that the 300-pound rapist potentially waiting for her around the corner does not care about such things? And, yes, things like that do happen.
So how is it that one citizen’s desire to “feel” secure trumps another citizen’s right to protect himself and his family, especially when law-abiding citizens defending themselves from criminals inherently “ensures public safety”?
If officials at the local levels of government have such a difficult time understanding the Constitution and the english language, it is no wonder that we ended up with the disaster we currently have in D.C.
On the other hand, another one of my city’s council members wrote an editorial in one of my town’s newspapers, and sent me a personal email informing me of it. Unfortunately, this particular paper’s web presence is… limited, so I had to reproduce the relevant portions myself (as such, any typos are mine and mine alone):

[...] On the surface, if you ask people if they want guns in parks, of course the answer is NO!! However, that is really not the question as we already have people illegally carrying guns in our parks and the existing laws are not (and cannot easily be) enforced. Should the City Council opt out and vote to leave law-abiding citizens defenseless, and only allow criminals to carry guns in our parks? With no compelling evidence that the state issued permit holders (about 5 percent of the population) represent a danger to park patrons, it would seem the Second Amendment, the Tennessee Constitution, and a host of laws and court rules should be allowed to govern the issue.

If the opt out option is approved, many costly signs will be posted that apply to permit holders only – the permitted gun holders who have had background checks, state approved training, and been finger-printed. Remember, these are law-abiding citizens (the good guys) who have permits for their guns!

Some who would ban legally carried guns worry about the results of accidental firearm discharge, but there is no evidence that responsible gun owners represent a significant risk. Another argument is that some parents at youth sporting events are known to lose control of their better judgement. Some worry about what would happen if one of those parents had possession of a gun.

Should we allow fear to overrule common sense and deprive law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights? Should we govern by fear and emotion or protect our constitutional rights?

I have never owned a gun myself. In fact, we have the old Nintendo “Duck Hunt” game at home, and I would not even let my husband show my nieces how to shoot ducks on the TV screen for fear that they might pick up an unsecured gun somewhere, someday thinking it was a toy and hurt themselves or another child. However, if I was hiking on the [PARK NAME] or some other remote area, I might want to consider purchasing a gun. respect, safety, proper training, and obeying the law in regard to weapons is something I support 100 percent.

On Monday night, July 20, the [TOWN] City Council will vote yes or no on an “opt out” resolution which will not allow citizens with handgun carry permits to carry guns in local public parks. [...]

As you can probably tell, I am somewhat conflicted over this issue and would like your thoughts. Thank you to those who have already weighed in.

Citizens/Voters – we need your input. Please let us know your opinion by sending an email to [ADDRESS] or by attending the Council Meeting at [TIME AND LOCATION].

My few, small quibbles with the above editorial are as follows: First, the laws of the land apply to all parties; it is just that criminals choose to ignore them, while we law-abiding citizens choose to be bound by them. Second, we have permits to carry our guns, not “for” our guns. Third, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, protected by the Constitution.
Apart from those minor details, however, I can find little fault with the above editorial – the council member in question does a good job addressing the significant points on both sides of the fence, as well as relating it to her own life experiences. Furthermore, you heard the lady – if you live in a Tennessee town consiering whether or not to “opt out” of the upcoming law change, CONTACT YOUR CITY/TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS. Some representatives still understand that it is their sworn duty to represent, some council members are still undecided, and some fall in both categories. Let your voices and opinions be heard. Hell, I have already done most of the hard part for you.