To The Daily Sun,
A recent article challenged my education regarding history. History was my minor in college, for which a BA was obtained. My thoughts were focused on public safety regarding weapons and other potentially dangerous equipment. But these thoughts emphasized that the Second Amendment is important and cannot be removed, for our own safety. What was offered was to “update” the Second Amendment to reflect current use of specialized weapons, high tech, and protecting the communities at large. One must realize such weapons were not present during the composition of the Second Amendment. Advanced weapons were reserved for military defense. The term “people” reflects individuals, and thankfully the Supreme Court has recognized this.
It is critical to ensure that such weapons be handled by well-qualified persons, rather than allow those with criminal backgrounds or significant mental health issues obtain these so freely. That would be the purpose of the “update.” It was NOT intended to repeal the Second Amendment, rather to make it safer for all of us.
One more note of comment: regarding cars to guns, one must also remember that cars outnumber guns. There are roughly 12 million cars on the road vs. a puny number of guns present. The proportion of deaths via guns vs. cars is significantly much higher. NRA does not include this fact. The comparisons to food dangers is simply inappropriate. This would be comparing apples to cars and guns. CNN reports the amount of deaths attributed to gun usage, suicide and other causes, was well over 20,000 lives. Deaths by automobile per commenting writer was 35,000 plus, which is really quite a comparison. Can these be controlled? Safety training is essential to reducing these significant deaths. In short it would seem that one is safer in a car than being around guns.
The medical issues causing deaths is not appropriate for this discussion. Even the richest in the world cannot prevent their death, medically or traumatically. Death is the great equalizer. Focusing on preventing premature death by trauma (guns, knives, bow and arrow, cars, trucks, etc.) is the goal of promoting the safety aspect of using these weapons and vehicles. None of us can control our final medical futures, some can be treated, others cannot. In the end, death is either natural or trauma afflicted. This is part of life.
Insurance is required for automobile driving in many states. It is also felt this should apply to use of guns, knives, bow and arrow, etc. Like cars, all of these improperly handled can cause premature traumatic deaths. Some states require this insurance protection.
Further as we look into history, many towns in the West required persons “check in their guns” before entering. Violations were strictly enforced. States also have the power to restrict according to several Supreme Court decisions. So the Second Amendment does not in fact promote unlimited use to carry arms.
A commenting writer offered interesting points of view. Hunting is a pastime enjoyed by many. But it is not the only means of obtaining food today. For those in far out places like Alaska, it is a way of life. I am not against hunting at all. Enjoying nature is a wonderful virtue and benefit. All hunters I have met are truly safe individuals who use these weapons wisely and safely. That is why I oppose destroying the Second Amendment. The regulations proposed would actually improve the Second Amendment, not detract from it. Keeping an open mind and listening to all points of view is essential to conserving and keeping our existence safe. By blending all of these together, we can arrive at a safe way to maintain our Second Amendment.
Robert T. Joseph, Jr.
- Written by Edward Engler
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 173