Letters to the editor
Not a debate about 2nd Amendment
I am a gun owner who is increasingly frustrated with the use of the Second Amendment by gun control opponents to support their position. The intent of the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Second Amendment can be debated by reasonable people. What cannot be debated is what the Second Amendment actually says. It states, “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.”
Notice that it does not say, “… the right of the people to keep and bear any and all types of arms, shall not be infringed.” Nuclear weapons are arms, but no rational person believes the people have the right to bear these arms, nor do I think that the Founding Fathers would have intended for the people to have that right had they dreamed of them. Few Americans believe everyone should be able to own fully automatic machine guns. Clearly, some restrictions to our right to keep and bear arms are already in place, and are accepted as being prudent, necessary and, more important, constitutional. …
It is reasonable for people to debate which types of arms should be restricted, including definitions of what constitutes an assault weapon, and how much magazine capacity is too much, or even whether these proposals will help curb gun violence; but to characterize the debate on these issues as a debate on the Second Amendment, or to imply that instituting the proposed restrictions tramples on our constitutional rights, is not reasonable or accurate. It just serves to inflame and distort the issue. THOMAS COYLE, WASHINGTON TWP.
‘We should focus on the true risks’
I am concerned about the many calls to restrict safe and law-abiding firearms owners, on both the national and local level, since the senseless tragedy at Sandy Hook. As a parent of school-age children, I understand the concerns we all have for keeping our children safe. However, we should focus on the true risks to our children, instead of statistically insignificant, even if scary seeming, events.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there is a 1 in 2.7 million chance that a child will be either murdered or die of suicide while at school. That number includes murder by any method, not just guns. On the other hand, the leading cause of death among school-age children is automobile accidents and the second is drowning. These two causes dwarf the odds of a child being killed or injured by a firearm.
If we really want to keep our children safe, we should stop being frightened of events that simply do not happen very often, even if they are really scary. Instead, we should focus our attention and energy on reducing the real leading causes of death and injury for our children. KIRK LAWSON, HUBER HEIGHTS
We barely won the Revolutionary War with an army that was comprised of underpaid volunteers. Today we can afford a standing army (“well-regulated militia”) that is the mightiest in the world. So clean your musket, but keep the heavy stuff in the armory (military bases).
Enacting gun laws is a stupendous waste of time and effort because gun laws ignore human nature. People are naturally violent creatures. Perhaps, after the gun laws are in place, we could pass legislation banning tornadoes and hurricanes. Or we could ban recreational sex. That would end the great debate about abortion, because all pregnancies would be planned and welcome. Good idea, don’t you think?