By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Your Views: Right to bear arms meant for people, not state
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.

Jim Scharnagel’s March 20 letter on the Second Amendment is a typical interpretation of that document by current liberal dogma. His final statement is a fair summation of his feelings. “While acknowledging that firearms such as sporting rifles and shotguns for hunting, and within reason, certain weapons for self-protection should be allowed, such rights were not addressed by the Second Amendment but rather a right to keep and bear arms for security of the state.”

The Second Amendment 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.” My interpretation is that although it recognizes the need for a well-regulated militia, it also points out such need shall not infringe upon rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

His exceptions for “sporting rifles and shotguns” are obvious, but where in the Second Amendment can you find terms such as “within reason” and “certain weapons” implied for defensive arms?

Furthermore, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not formulated for the express purpose of “security of the state,” as he states. A primary goal of the document was to protect the people from actions by an oppressive government. With his outlook, we would quite possibly be still answering to the king or queen of England!

Frankly, President Barack Obama’s 2006 speech in which he expressed the need for a civilian security force as strong or stronger than the regular Army, which he would control without congressional interference, scares the heck out of me!

The Internet is rife with reports of Homeland Security forces buying billions of rounds of ammo, including millions of rounds of hollow-point ammo, outlawed internationally for use in war. Are we to surmise it is illegal or wrong to shoot someone from another country waging war on us with a hollow-point round, but acceptable to blow a hole in one of our own citizens with a hollow-point. If not, I’d like to know just why Homeland Security is in need of amounts and types of ammunition that surpass needs even by the Army.

Every country requiring national gun registration has ended in some form of gun confiscation, generally resulting in escalating crime rates. The proposed legislation requiring background checks of sales or donations of guns between private individuals, including families, is an indelible reminder of a fascist government takeover in 1930s Germany. It was all “for the good of the state.”

It’s already illegal to own an automatic weapon without serious negotiations with our government, and I accept that. Why shouldn’t I have the right to own a high-capacity magazine for a semi-automatic weapon? There are absolutely no studies to show that mass killings would have been eliminated or even reduced with smaller-capacity magazines. It takes only a few seconds to change magazines.

I know of no organizations, including the NRA, promoting arming of “undertrained teachers.” However, with proper training, teachers willing to carry arms likely would have short-circuited or reduced the number of individuals killed in those mass murders.

Monte E. Seehorn

Regional events