Point-counterpoint

To the editor:

In response to the letter written by Ruth Johnson (Messenger, March 15) which was written in response to my letter of March 8:
I agree wholeheartedly with Ruth Johnson on several central points of her response.

First: Yes, I am definitely a bleeding heart. My heart bleeds for the children who have been murdered, and for their traumatized classmates, families and communities, and for our whole country where these massacres have become common and are considered preferable to proposed gun control measures.

Second: Ms. Johnson is right to identify the deeper problem as a moral one. Is there a way to change the morality of our people so that the lives of the children and of all of us will be protected? Legislating the heart by civil law is not possible. God’s law dictates attitudes of the heart, for God’s law is written in Scripture and in the heart of each person. But enforcing God’s law by civil legislation is often not possible, as civil law cannot reach the interior of the person. The best we can do with our civil laws is to regulate exterior practice, as we do regarding the use of the automobile, which, like guns, can be lethal. The automobile causes as many deaths each year as do fire arms. Without traffic laws the automobile would cause even more deaths. Yet we do not suggest that traffic be unregulated. Yes, you are right. Cars are not the problem. The drivers are the problem. Yet regulation is necessary because of the right to life of others. We must regulate the use of cars and other types of motor vehicles that can be used on the various roadways and city zones.

Third: Guns are useful for hunting. I agree, as I too am from a family where rabbit, squirrel and pheasant were rotating elements of our diet. But we never shot a rabbit with an assault weapon. And if we had, what would be left of it to put on the table? Hunting too requires sensible use of guns.

Let’s read the 2nd Amendment carefully and with an open heart. I don’t think it describes what we are living today in our country.

Sr. Phyllis Morris, OSF
Clinton

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwittermail
Posted on

1 thought on “Point-counterpoint

  1. Phyl, I think you more than adequately replied to Ruth Johnson. I found your reply very well-reasoned and clearly articulated. Marjorie

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *