Hi, Joe. Good letter. I wrote one, too, which got published. It's a lot like yours. Great minds think alike, huh? Here's mine:

Dear Editor,

Lowell Grisham proves that "liberals" can be every bit as clever as "fundies" in cherry-picking scripture to "prove" their biases. (NWA Times 3/31/08) Grisham, a proponent of victim-disarmament and rabid opponent of self-defense, claims that Jesus would support using government police power to disarm law-abiding people. Of course, he ignores Jesus' words that clearly state otherwise, such as Luke 22:35-38: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Instead, Grisham quotes the exception rather than the rule - Jesus saying to his disciples that, since he needs to fullfill a prophesy, submit to violence in this particular case.

Grisham pulls some other tricks. He confuses government mass murder with self-defense. Obviously, there is nothing inconsistent in refusing to allow soldiers into a church and supporting self-defense. Who would Jesus demand the government forcibly disarm? Grisham takes Jesus' moral teachings pertaining to individuals and construes them as condoning government policy. He fails to acknowledge that guns are used for self-defense; apparently thinking the purpose of guns is to kill indiscriminately. He wants to leave the poor defenseless by outlawing low-price weapons ("Saturday night specials").

Then there's lying with statistics. Grisham notes "For every time a gun is used in a legally justifiable shooting, there are 22 criminal, unintentional or suicide-related shootings." What's wrong here, critical thinkers? Answer: The sample is contrived. Legally justified shootings are only a miniscule portion of successful instances of self-defense by firearms. One must consider all the murders, rapes, and muggings that were prevented by simply brandishing a gun, and all the crimes that were prevented by criminals believing the target might have a gun. A sounder approach would be to compare crime rates in places with liberal gun carry laws with those under restrictive laws. Many studies indicate that the more privately owned guns there are, the less crime. That's logical, since making crime more expensive tends to disuade it. Simple economics.

Grisham writes about people in his congregation who were harmed in gun-related accidents or commited suicide, but doesn't mention the people in his flock who were murdered, maimed, or raped by criminals due to lack of self-defense tools. Finally, Grisham needs to speak to an English major about nominative absolute phrases. The "well regulated militia" phrase is simply explanatory and could be omitted without affecting the meaning of the second amendment. The pertinent part is: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Even the Supreme Court is expected to acknowledge that the second amendment is an individual right (DC vs Heller.) Of course, ultimately the right of self-defense derives from the nature of man, not pretty words on paper.

Hogeye Bill