Upcoming Events
Poll
Second Amendment
Kudos to C. R. McDermott, who wrote of the proliferation of guns in our country and in our county. On the day of the Newtown tragedy, the sticker on the front page of the Chronicle said “Gun Show.” Like McDermott, I observed the signs along U.S. 19 advertising the gun show.
That evening, commentator Mark Shields said his time in the Marines instilled in him the knowledge that the purpose of a gun was to kill, nothing else.
Shields’ remark resonated with me. When I was young, I was drawn to the shooting galleries at carnivals, probably impressed by the eye/hand coordination factor. But, like with Shields, the Army gave me a different perspective. Qualifying on a carbine or a rifle might have been just more eye/hand coordination, but there was something sinister about the 45. The weapon was unwieldy and unpleasant and the cardboard target left nothing to the imagination. Like McDermott, I don’t own a gun, haven’t touched one since the Army 60 years ago; my children have never touched a weapon.
The NRA is complaining the president wants to take away our Second Amendment rights. It’s not so. No mortal would ever dare oppose the Second Amendment, which enjoys a special magic. It 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.”
Our founding fathers are considered prescient. The structure of the government they crafted still works a couple of centuries later. But the Second Amendment was about muskets. The Founding Fathers weren’t sufficiently prescient to envision assault weapons. A well regulated militia is of course a good idea. Switzerland gave young men guns but the government kept the ammunition, to be used only during training. The NRA holds us to the words of the Constitution but maybe we can play that game.
The Constitution states the people have the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn’t spell out the right to ammunition. It may be an approach we could take without trampling on the sacred Second Amendment.
Mary B. Gregory
Homosassa
Add new comment
Read and share your thoughts on this story
Ad Gallery
Copyright © 2013
ammunition
while much of what you say is true, it's a difficult issue with no easy answers. we do need to try address the safety concerns.
however the limiting of ammo would simply create a huge black market, pricing anyone but gangs, organized crime and drug dealers out of the market.
they will get it.
who gets to decide how much ammunition is given, how much is enough and who will get it ?
the approach would simply create a huge bureaucracy [ and who pays for it ] , most likely cause more problems than it solves and for what gain ?
i applaud a honest discussion on gun controls however each proposal needs to be examined for unintended consequences.
Second Amendment:
Obviously Ms. Gregory is one of the misguided liberals who believes that an unarmed society is a safe society. Tell that to the crimianal who don't care about following the rules of legal gun pocession. I certainly hope she is never put in a situation where she or her family needs to defend themselves. Even our Sheriff condones LEGAL ownership because even he is aware his deputies can't be everywhere. This is where the old adage comes in: "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away."
By th way in reference to Sandy Hook, an "assault rifle" was not used contrary to many of the reports in the media.
YOU should be arrested for
YOU should be arrested for Treason Ma'am! I have a HUMAN right to protect myself and my family from anybody, including yourself, that threatens our well-being. How are YOU going to protect your family when the bad guy (who doesn't care about laws and rules) breaks in your house to steal what you have earned, and to rape and kill what you love?