2018-03-29 / Letters

Amendment Rights Clash in Anti-gun Protests

To the editor:

When will it all end? The constant drumbeat of gun control is never ending. Was the Parkland shooting a travesty? Absolutely! Will gun control legislation prevent wanton killing in the future? Never! Only if every gun is confiscated by government action, will future tragedy be prevented. Will gun confiscation ever happen? Never!

What then, will solve the problem? Certainly not damming the NRA and calling citizens like me a terrorist for owning a gun as did the Governor from an East Coast state. Politicians are the least effective method for correcting the problem of gun control. They don’t like public dissent. They want your vote.

Will students cutting classes to demonstrate against the NRA and gun ownership “cure the problem? Not likely. But, you say, it’s my right to demonstrate under the protection of the First Amendment. It is also my right to own a firearm under the protection of the Second Amendment.

The problem is complex to say the least. In my opinion, only when we begin conducting ourselves like Godfearing citizens, respecting the positive aspects of family life through parental guidance will we begin to see positive results in the behavior of our society.

Political correctness, abortion, violence on television, movies, video games viewed and played by our children before they learn to walk. All contribute to the problem. What do we expect? I would think, with all our highly educated society, we would be able to recognize the problem.

Ted M. Rink
Long Rd.
Avon, Ohio

Return to top

"A well regulated militia,

"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.” Since the drafting of the those words in 1791, the clauses "well regulated militia", "free state", and "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd Amendment have been debated ad nauseum. What has not been defined properly is the definition of "arms". If you are a gun lover, you are passionate about your weapons – sometimes almost irrationally like they are animate objects that deserve emotional nurturing. I have many friends who own rifles which were passed on through generations, and they hold on to these like their great grandfather's pocket watch. And they should. They are collector's items as well as family heirlooms. They serve a purpose – for leisure sport hunting and family heritage. And they are allowed and protected by the 2nd Amendment of our US Constitution. There are others who own handguns – again protected, lawfully owned, and serve a purpose of personal safety and defense. And then there are still others who have this unnatural need to own military style assault weapons, with high round magazine clips, that also are currently protected by the 2nd amendment. My question is whether the word "arm" has any limitations? Should we be allowed to own the Gatling styled M134 Minigun which fires 100 rounds per second? Or the Australian Metal Storm gun which puts the M134 to shame by firing a whopping 1 million rounds per minute, nearly 3X the speed of the Minigun. Shouldn't we all as citizens of this great land each have the right to own one of those beauties? They are "arms"; we are entitled as part of a "well regulated militia" (by someone's definition); and that right should therefore "not be infringed". Right? I personally don't hunt animals, but I skeet shoot and target shoot for pleasure. And I have no problem with my hunter friends who do hunt. But I know of no hunter who would hunt deer with a high round assault weapon. We don’t protect ourselves from home intruders with them; we don’t shoot skeet with them; and we certainly don’t need to fall in love with them. If you are emotionally unattached, get yourself a dog. Let's keep the 2nd Amendment in place, but let's be sensible about what our fore father's intentions were in 1791. Give our military the mass shooting capabilities and limit the citizens to sensible small arms. Stand up to the NRA. Say you believe in much of what they stand for – but set some sensible and intelligent limits.

Other countries have the same

Other countries have the same social problems/issues that we do, but only a very very tiny fraction of the gun violence that we do. The inescapable conclusion is that guns are too easily available in the US. There is plenty of room to tighten up the rules (e.g. universal background checks) without trampling on anyone's 2nd amendment rights as described in the Heller decision, written by conservative justice Anthony Scalia. I agree that confiscation of firearms will not happen in the US. But some common sense laws regarding firearms would be nice.