Burt's gun ideas are discriminatory

Burt Constable's March 4 opinion piece "Let's take the safety off common sense" presents a distorted view. I understand this was an opinion piece, but when opinions and perceptions are based on half-truths and falsehoods the conclusions people draw are predictably slanted.

Most of the demographic groups you itemized as potential modern day militia members are precluded by existing laws from owning firearms. Those who aren't can choose whether they want to take on the responsibility of gun ownership. Presenting gang bangers and the emotionally disturbed in this argument reveals you are either ignorant of current law or you are trying to make a point via disingenuous means. You support your "common sense" argument that guns don't protect people very well with a false understanding of what happened at Fort Hood, which is gigantic. Tens of thousands of people live there and it spans 340 square miles. Stateside soldiers are not allowed to be armed while on base; that they have been trained to use guns for protection is meaningless if they don't actually have one. Military police on patrol would have similar response times to those of a standard urban police department. In effect, Fort Hood arguably would not have happened if the soldiers targeted were known to be armed. Major Hasan surely would not have walked into a room of armed men and pulled a gun. That's "common sense."

Common sense also says that "hefty taxes" on guns and ammo are arguably infringement. Common sense dictates that the cost of insurance prevents lower-income individuals from enjoying their constitutional freedoms. Your ideas are discriminatory and suggest you support disarming an underclass. I'm sure you had the best intentions and didn't intend to paint yourself as an elitist, but that is a common occurrence when one makes an argument based in opinion and emotion.

Timothy Beaver

West Chicago