In his Jan. 14 letter regarding gun control and violent video games, Michael Pearson advocates teaching children how to use firearms, “just as we teach our children about driving, drugs, and sex” (“Safety may best be learned at the firing range”); however, in teaching kids about drugs, we teach them about how dangerous drugs are; we don’t offer them drugs.
Guns, like drugs, are dangerous in the wrong hands. The Second Amendment protects citizens’ rights to bear firearms as part of a well-regulated militia. Also, at that time, muskets were the latest technology in firearms. If you want a musket, go for it.
Comments
Michael Pearson was addressing the safety issue of children and guns, the accidental shootings that occur when a child handles a gun, unaware of the consequences. He was not "offering" them guns.
Regarding the 2nd Ammendment. If further research is done, by reading what the founding fathers wrote concerning arming citizens, and why they included the 2A, it becomes very clear that the intent was to prevent tyranny of the government. Another one of their "checks and balances". Since the government is no longer armed with muskets, it is ludicrous to state that the citizens should protect themselves against tyranny with muskets. Yes, the government has tanks, missiles, aircraft, etc., but the sheer number of armed citizens is enough to give the government pause, or at least it has until now, it seems.
"Citizens don’t need to own automatic or semiautomatic firearms. As a high school student, I would feel safer if the proper laws were enacted to control gun ownership"
We agreed many years ago that automatic weapons "needed" to be controlled and they are STRICTLY controlled. However, the use of the word "need" is improper. Others may think that you do not "need" items that you feel are essential to your well being. In any case, the 2A was written so that no one would have to prove a "need" to own a gun. You may feel safer, but others do not. The constitution is not about doing what the majority wants, but rather about protecting the rights of individuals. We are not a democracy, thankfully, otherwise, the tyranny of the majority would prevail.
Yours is a good, thoughtful letter, thank you. Please ignore the criticism of our local zealot(s). Some are merely so frightened and paranoid that they sadly and unfortunately can only find comfort in their own arsenals.