Some people are out to ‘gut’ Second Amendment


Your view

Mr. Tony Marconi was inviting some polite feedback on his article “Do civilians really need military-grade guns and weapons” from the Feb. 28 Gazette. He tries to insinuate in his article that he is not anti-gun and that he supports the Second Amendment. Yet, he says, its wording needs clarification from time to time.

“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”

What exactly needs clarified? Regulated? Meaning well trained. Militia? The citizen soldier who kept a musket (the assault rifle of that time period) in his home to defend his family and his country. Right? A legal entitlement. Infringed? Actively breaking the terms of a law. No, it is pretty clear what the amendment means, and it is just as it is clear that what the progressive socialists want to do is gut the Second Amendment or eliminate it entirely. The founding fathers, having just defeated the most powerful army in the world to gain this country’s freedom, saw the necessity of having military-grade weapons in the homes of its citizens to protect the freedoms dearly bought by the blood of their fellow patriots. Many say we have an army to do that for us now. Perhaps that is true to an extent, as long as that army is loyal to the people and is not commandeered by some radical faction of the government. Do you trust your government? What would we fight a rouge government with? Sticks and stones? This was the intent and why citizens should be allowed to have military-grade weapons. Although, I contend that most semi-autos such as the AR-15 are not military grade.

I shoot competitively, and shooting is a hobby that I really enjoy with my friends and family. As a law-abiding citizen, I should be able to do that with any firearm that I choose. There are many enjoyable activities and competitions that use these types of firearms. I don’t know what hobbies Mr. Marconi enjoys but having read numerous letters that he has penned, I would say he enjoys writing letters to the editor. Now, if I am offended by Mr. Marconi’s editorial, perhaps we should clarify the First Amendment. Maybe he should have to get a license to pen such articles. Or maybe he should have to take a test to insure that he understands the U.S. Constitution before he writes about it. Perhaps, he should be limited to one published article or maybe that article should only be allowed to hold 10 words or less. And if he is caught with more than 10 words in an article, he should be imprisoned and his pen taken away. Ludicrous? Well certainly. Yet, he lists in his article several changes he would like to see that would place restrictions on my hobby and my constitutional right. Mr. Marconi, I am sure would contend that his writing has never hurt anyone. Neither have my guns. So, why is it that every time some kook kills a bunch of people, I get punished for it? If someone yells “FIRE” in a crowded theater and people are killed in the ensuing stampede, should we blame Mr. Marconi because he is pro First Amendment?

Firearms have been a part of the American society from the beginning. What we are witnessing is not a firearm problem, but rather a societal problem. Until we as a society regain the respect for human life (beginning in the womb) and each other, we will continue to be plagued by these types of occurrences, whether by shooting, stabbing, bombing or any other means by which a broken individual might think they can make themselves famous on the nightly news. And oh how the media loves to make them famous! So, to those who say we need common sense gun laws, I say that we have more than enough gun laws. What we lack, Mr. Marconi, is the common sense to respect the lives of others and their individual rights. After all, we live in a republic where those rights are supposed to be protected.

Your view

Rodney J. Harp

Sunbury

Rodney J. Harp

Sunbury