By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Your Views: Gun control ideas go against reality and Constitution
Placeholder Image

To send a letter to the editor, click here for a form and letters policy or send to letters@
. Please include your full name, hometown and a contact number for confirmation

In recent days, there have been two letter writers who have expressed that the Second Amendment shouldn’t be more important than the others and that semi-auto weapons and high capacity magazines should be banned.

Our first writer pointed out that there are certain limitations to free speech, citing that you cannot yell fire in a crowded building, you cannot slander others and that one cannot commit perjury. The three issues he mentions are unlawful by statute, whether criminal or civil.

The right to bear arms is likewise limited as you cannot murder, assault or act reckless with firearms. The writer states that we should do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. Apparently, he hasn’t much experience with buying firearms, because if he had, he’d know that we have a mandatory hurdle in place before one buys a firearm. It’s called a background check, and although the system is somewhat flawed when it comes to the mentally ill being placed in its database, it has generally worked well in keeping felons and those convicted of domestic violence from buying firearms.

The writer further states we should do all we can to keep the murder rate down. Generally, in areas where citizens are freer to carry concealed weapons, crime rates, murder included, are relatively low; likewise, in areas where citizens are severely restricted on carrying concealed firearms, the crime rates are much higher.

The writer, in his last point, suggests that if the forefathers knew what kind of arms would be available today, they would have given more thought in wording the Second Amendment. The forefathers weren’t stupid men; they knew firearms technology was bound to improve and thus left the wording as it was written. There was no thought of restricting people from owning the latest type of firearm that technology produced. If that had been the intention, the wording would have been: “The right of the people to keep and bear muskets and flintlocks shall not be infringed.”

Our second writer’s main point was that laws should be passed to ban semiautomatic firearms and high-capacity magazines, further adding: “I do not need a gun that fires 900 bullets a minute to protect my home.” Neither does anyone else, but if I’m a law-abiding citizen, I should be able to own any firearm I choose that complies with current law, and right now, AR-15s are legal.

His point that high-capacity magazines should be banned is nonsensical, also. Go ahead and ban magazines over 10 rounds. The psychotic mass shooters will just have to swap magazines a little more often.

He also suggests that after a six-month grace period, if certain weapons are banned, those who don’t turn in those banned weapons ought to be labeled a felon for having them. Sorry, ex-post facto laws are unconstitutional; they would have to be grandfathered.

Kirk Palmer

Regional events