The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1921-02-03
RIGHT TO CARRY ARMS"

1t is an old and well-known saying
hat great minds run in the same
channels If not altogether true,
there are condolences enough to prove |
that it is not more erratic than any
other proverb.
In the issue of Tuesday, Feb. /, of
the Gainesville Evening News appear
ed the following editorial:
"The editor of contemporary, in
the proposal to take fire
arms away from the people in order
to disarm bandits and robbers, ex-
presses fear that such action might
with the constitutional right
of the people to keep and bear arms
the right to which reference is made
is quotation from the second amend
ment to the constitution of the United
States, which reads: "A well regulated
militia being necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear. arms shall not be
infringed.' 1t appears extremely
doubtful if this amendment to the
constitution was intended to preserve
the right of any individual to maintain
an arsenal in his home or to carry it
abroad. 1t surely did not mean that
any person should be encouraged to
keep weapons that would aid him in
the commission of crime The fact
that the term, a we'll regulated mil
itia,' is used in the amendment would
indicate that the right to keep and
bear arms is not an individual right,
but one of collective character, given
through regular organization for
the protection of the state, as is plain
ly indicated by the wording of the
amendment. Bandits will get pistols
and other weapons for their thievish
and murderous uses, so the only plan
that seems to be feasible is to round
UP the crooks and disarm them. There
is nothing to fear from law-abiding
citizens, even if they should provide
themselves with weapons in self-de-
Tense. The crook who is permitted to
1un at large will find weapons to car
ry on his criminal work, regardless of
any laws that may be passed"
As the criticism was evidently aim
ed at the Star, which had made few
days ago remarks similar to those
commented on, we made criticism in
return; and much was our astonish-
nent on reading the Tampa Tribune
of Wednesday, Feb. 2 (reading the
Trib is one of our regular evening
pleasures) to find the same editorial,
word for word. We had been cleaning
some ink off our breeches with gaso-
line, and at first thought the fumes
of the liquid had caused us to see dou-
be, but on summoning trusty friend
TO hold copy. we reading the Tribune
and he holding the News, we were
soon convinced that the two articles
were. as exactly alike as tho one was
carbon copy of the other.
Now, we are fiattered to have two
such powerful minds as those on the
Tribune and the News take enough no
tice of our feeble efforts to comment
upon them; but will they kindly con-
descend to satisfy our pardonable 1--WE
hope) curiosity, and inform us how
they came to think the same thinks at
almost the same time.
We have no idea that either jour-
nalist would use the others article
without credit. The News editorial
was evidently written either Monday
night or Tuesday morning. The Tri-
bune editorial was evidently written
Tuesday afternoon. The first train
after the News was published from
Gainesville to Tampa would not arrive
in Tampa until after the Tribune had
gone to press. Of course the Gaines
vile editor might have written the
article Monday and sent carbon copy
to the Tribune in plenty of time, but
the Tribune would not have published
it without credit
1t is obviously not syndicate edi-
torial Much fun is made of canned"
editorials, but they are all well writ
ten, while this thing is weak; it
squirms around and all but contradicts
itself. We can hardly believe either
of our contemporary journalists would
have written such spineless and wig
ely thing 1t seems to US that most