I had to respond to the Aug. 1 letter Modest Restrictions Dont Weaken Second Amendment. <\/p>\n
The Second Amendment does notsaya well regulated state Militia; it says a well regulated Militia, which would be made up of average, everydaycitizens. The National Guard and the Coast Guard are both controlled by the government. <\/p>\n
One only has to read what our Founding Fathers have to say about the Second Amendment to understand its intent. To quote Thomas Jefferson, The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Based on the intent of the Second Amendment, any restriction on gun ownership is a violation of our constitutional rights. We should have the right to own any gun or weapon available. <\/p>\n
Duane Hartgrove Columbia <\/p>\n
Common Sense Needed in Gun Debate <\/p>\n
Recently, The State newspaper printed a collection of pro-gun\/pro-NRA-leaning letters to the editor. These letters condemned those who didnt agree with them, implying that those who disagree are crazy, stupid, ignorant, misinformed and\/or dangerous. One writer even promoted the ownership and personal use of AK-47s. <\/p>\n
There are many variations among those who believe that enforcing the existing gun laws is just not enough (though this enforcement is sincerely needed). Personally, I wonder why anyone needs to own semi-automatic weapons, automatic weapons or high-volume clips.These weapons and ammunition clips are intended for use by law enforcement and the military; their only hunting use is to kill multiple beings as quickly as possible. They are destructive and impossible to use for hunting. <\/p>\n
My view is that there is nothing wrong with people owning long guns for hunting; handguns for personal safety; and non-multiple shot clips, provided that these owners take the necessary safety precautions. Along with gun ownership comes the requirement to safely secure the weapons and ammunition from those who are too young or not trained to understand the proper handling and use of these weapons. <\/p>\n
Not all gun situations would be prevented or minimized by the addition of more people having more guns. In cases where homeowners with guns confront perpetrators, perpetrators often prevail because they have more training, are more adept or are quicker and calmer during the altercation than the gun owner. <\/p>\n
Those victims who are surprised by a perpetrator cant react quickly enough to provide their own defense. For example, the recent Colorado massacre might have been made more severe by introducing more flying bullets into a dark, chaotic situation. Perhaps a trained person with a gun who had a clear, close and undetected position might have lowered the intensity and length of the incident, but even this person could not have prevented it. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
More here: I had to respond to the Aug. 1 letter Modest Restrictions Dont Weaken Second Amendment. Continue reading
\nAll Guns Should Be Legal<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"