A recent letter responding to my logic about gun regulation under the Second Amendment was disappointing. Not only did the writer fail to present any cogent reasoning, he also stooped to personal attacks.
The writer states that the definitions I used were “inaccurate for the time or the situation” but gives no reasoning to support this claim. Instead, he refers to a long ago time when militias were called up from the general population and had to provide their own supplies, and even says they “needed (note the past tense) their own weapons and ammunition of military grade.”
The writer also defines the term “regulate” as “to put in good order.” Does not this definition also explicitly call for control? Even the definition of “infringe” used in his response ties into my assertion that since the amendment itself calls for regulation, such regulation is not unlawful.
I do not advocate denying any qualified citizen the right to bear arms, but there have to be responsibilities attached to that right. The right to own a car comes with responsibilities — you must have insurance, you must be licensed, your car must be registered and licensed, and you are responsible for your actions behind the wheel.
Never miss a local story.