Key word in gun debate is ‘Arms’
Key word in gun debate is ‘Arms’
On Jan. 21, we celebrated the inauguration of President Obama. On the same day, we also remembered a great American, Martin Luther King, Jr. To mark that day, I feel compelled to write about a matter of concern to some Americans: gun control.
Years ago, at a much younger age, I owned a shotgun with which I hunted. Now, at an older age as I no longer hunt, I no longer own that shotgun. When I owned a shotgun, the maximum number of shells allowed in the magazine was three. When and how did we get to the point where weapons now are capable of firing in great excess of three? Who called for weapons capable of firing dozens of bullets in rapid fashion?
The Bill of Rights was written in the late 1700s as our new nation recovered from the Revolutionary War. The people were rightly concerned about protection from tyranny. Thus, an amendment was added to the Constitution so militias could provide security and the people should have the right to keep guns.
The Second Amendment states: “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.”
This amendment does not indicate if the Arms kept by people should be three-bullet shotguns, six- shot pistols, or AK47s. Just what kinds of weaponry does the NRA wish for the American people to possess at a time when we have well regulated militias offering us security? Should our streets be flooded with AK47s so as to offer us security? Such a thought borders on anarchy.
To my NRA friends, I do not question your guaranteed right to own guns. The key Amendment word is “Arms” — how many and what kind?
Richard Kastner
Aurora