This is in response to Matt Flamm's commentary on Aug. 21 regarding the original intent of the Second Amendment. Thank goodness we have Mr. Flamm's interpretation of the Second Amendment. I always thought the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to give us commoners a way to fight back against a tyrannical government (remember "for the people by the people"?). Now, like the law-abiding citizens in all other states, many of us have the chance to protect ourselves by being able to carry a concealed weapon.
Whether or not Mr. Flamm wishes to have the means to protect himself is up to him. Although I do respect his right to be a victim, I would ask he be respectful of those of us who have made the choice hopefully to not be a victim by being able to defend ourselves and our families. Perhaps Mr. Flamm is unaware that these licenses aren't handed out to just anyone. There are hours of training that surpass every other state in the union.
You can bet the news media are waiting to pounce on any mistake made by a person with a concealed-carry license. However, since the law took effect I have not seen an instance in which an innocent person has been hurt. I would challenge Mr. Flamm to give an example of a vigilante killing someone, as he states. I would also ask Mr. Flamm what he would rather have if his car broke down on the South Side with his daughter inside, a cellphone or a .45?
Elk Grove Village