Unfettered Letters

Second Amendment allows for self-defense

I am not a particularly heroic man. I honestly admit that if I or my loved ones were trapped in a burning building or attacked by armed criminals, I would much prefer that we be saved by the professionals — the fire department or the police, for example. But if the professionals cannot or will not save us, then I pledge that by God I will do what I can to save me and mine.

I believe that the founders of our great America, the brave men and women who struggled, suffered and died in that endeavor, shared my feelings when they wrote the Second Amendment for individuals into the U.S. Constitution.

In contrast, it appears that John R. Ratzlaff (12/3 Opinion, “As I See It: Right to bear arms focused on militias, not individuals”) and most liberals would prefer to perish as helpless victims if the professionals can’t save them.

Larry McMeins
Olathe

Our right to bear arms

John R. Ratzlaff, like so many others arguing against the rights of individuals to bear arms, argues in favor of “militias” (12/3, Opinion, “As I See It: Right to bear arms focused on militias, not individuals”). His statement that, “the meaning of the Second Amendment at the time seems explicit: The right to bear arms belongs to the militia for the purpose of defending the State” is just simply wrong.

Ratzlaff conveniently ignores the fact that, during the time frame when the Second Amendment was framed and ratified, militia persons were usually expected to provide their own weapons, equipment and supplies. In fact, the origins of the right to bear arms go back to England in the 12th century, when King Henry II obligated all “freemen” to bear arms for public defense.

The “originalist” interpretation, “according to the ‘common sense’ meaning and definition of the document’s words at the time they were written” can lead to no other conclusion than an individual right to bear arms.

Charles Black
Leavenworth

I appreciate Professor John Ratzlaff’s comments and interpretation that only militias should have guns, per the Second Amendment. However learned he may be, he completely failed to mention the second half of the 2nd Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Perhaps he has a liberal cataract in his eye that caused this oversight.

Bruce Luedeman
Independence

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — James Madison, The Federalist Papers

The primary author of the Constitution wrote these words in descriptive support of the document itself. The militias of the time were made up of the common citizen. Shopkeepers, craftsmen and farmers picked up their personal rifles and stood, shoulder to shoulder, to fight the tyranny of an overbearing government.

Last summer my wife and I spent a week in Colonial Williamsburg, Va., as everyone should. There, we stood in the Powder Magazine, a building that housed the black powder and lead musket balls to supply the citizens in time of threat. There were no barracks at this site, because the militia was the citizens. Upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the British raided the magazine and stole the powder, disarming the citizens.

It scares me to the bone that people who want to distort history for their own cause are in a position to influence our youth.

Randy Moser
Paola, Kan.

In defense of ‘assault’ rifles

A.L Pearson (11/17, Letters) wonders who really needs an assault rifle. I’ll skip the semantics of assault rifle definition and ask Pearson a question: Who decides who needs an assault rifle? Who decides if a rifle is attractive enough, or if its intended use is worthy enough for ownership? The last thing this country needs is a committee or an appointed bureaucrat sitting in judgment of what is appropriate for an American citizen to own.

Owning a firearm labeled as an “assault” rifle does not make the owner commit a crime. The old “assault” rifle ban was nothing but a token victory for the gun-control crowd and did absolutely nothing to lower crime rates. The percentage of firearm-related crimes committed with “assault” rifles is so low it’s statistically insignificant, which makes sensible people wonder what all the fuss is about.

Ward Weber of Olathe (11/10, A-1, “Election’s outcome triggers record sales at gun shops”) can hunt with his “assault” rifle, or hang it on a wall, or stir paint with it. It’s his business, not mine, and certainly not yours.

Paul Christman
Kansas City

We Americans do not need most of the things that we own. We don’t need swimming pools or sports cars, either — each of which cause more deaths than assault rifles.

Having said that, I own several assault rifles myself. I own them because I enjoy shooting them at the range. Although some people do use them for hunting, they are actually less powerful than most hunting rifles.

Why do people buy them? Some people collect stamps, some collect baseball cards, and others collect firearms.

John Hoskins
Blue Springs

Is it really an ‘assault rifle’?

A.L. Pearson (11/17, Letters, “Who really needs an assault rifle?”) obviously is not a hunter.

What the media refer to as an “assault rifle” is not the same thing a gun owner, or, for that matter, a soldier would. The “assault rifle” Ward Weber (11/10, A-1, “Election’s outcome triggers record sales at gun shops”) was purchasing was a semiautomatic rifle, no different from most hunting rifles, which uses the same ammunition as many common hunting rifles. Basically, what the media call an “assault rifle” is just a hunting rifle with a scary-looking exterior.

I hope my powerful NRA lobby will continue the fight against liberals’ tactics of fear against law-abiding citizens and allow us to continue to both hunt and defend ourselves.

Joe A. Henderson
Raytown

A.L. Pearson asks why an ordinary citizen would want an assault rifle. I would say for the same reason someone would want a Corvette, an iPhone or a designer purse, when much less expensive versions of these products would suffice. This is America, where we have the freedom to pursue our interests and enjoy a variety of hobbies.

A rifle like the one Mr. Weber purchased could be used for sport shooting, home defense or hunting. In truth, it is very similar to other rifles not tagged with the “assault” label. The biggest difference is visual. Any laws restricting the purchase of “assault” weapons are typically based on completely cosmetic features.

The restrictions on these weapons do nothing to improve the safety of the average citizen. All of the laws in the world won’t stop someone from committing a crime if they have the intent to do so.

Brandon Barthel
Overland Park

Who really needs an assault rifle?

The picture of Ward Weber of Olathe buying an assault rifle (11/10, A-1, “Election’s outcome

triggers record sales at gun shops”) makes me glad I live in Lee’s Summit.

Why would an ordinary citizen want an assault rifle? Have you watched the news lately? There

are senseless killings every day. Will Mr. Weber’s gun help that? Will he hunt with that

rifle? Pity the prey.

We can only hope that the powerful NRA lobby is faced with a president who won’t back down

from them and will finally push through guns laws with teeth.

I welcome President-elect Obama and anything he can do to change the gun-hungry nation that

President Bush has incited with his tactics of fear.

A.L Pearson

Lee’s Summit

Not all conservatives tote guns

The old adage “don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story” applies to most liberal and most conservative commentaries. It is sometimes amusing but most times insulting to my intelligence that we, the common folk, are not capable of separating facts from fiction.

Take the commentary by Garrison Keillor (9/20, Local, “Where a liberal stares and the moose survive”). I get the impression that Keillor thinks all conservatives are just a bunch of good old boys and gals — gun-toting buffoons — out in the woods shooting anything that moves or anything that might appear to be a danger.

Most liberals believe human interference in the last 15 to 20 years has caused the decline of certain species while, in fact, conservation-minded folks have helped sustain these species through various wildlife habitat improvement programs. Most conservatives respect and value our wildlife resources.

I have been involved with conservation my entire career, and I am avid hunter and fisherman. But nothing could be further from the truth when being labeled a gun-toting wildlife-abuser.

So, Mr. Keillor should do some research about what most of us conservatives believe in before spouting his liberal bias.

George Taylor
Gallatin, Mo.

‘Customer shoots gunman’

I strongly applaud The Star for its front-page report of the ATM user who successfully defended himself with a gun (8/3, Local, “Customer shoots gunman; Confrontation in Northland parking lot ends with the robber hospitalized”).

The story is important because it lets the criminal element know that their activity carries a higher risk now that concealed carry is a reality in Kansas City. More stories like that will surely result in a reduced number of attacks on innocent citizens.

Ed Geither
Overland Park

I never look forward to someone being injured, but the first thing I thought of when I read “Customer shoots gunman” was, “It’s about time!”

Every day I read stories of armed robberies and other violence, and finally a story comes along where someone was able to fight back. I wonder what this thief was thinking when he figured out he robbed the wrong person this time.

I took a concealed carry class so that if I needed to I could protect myself or my family. I felt that would be the only situation where I would pull a weapon on someone. But I’ve also never had someone demand my wallet while shoving a gun in my face.

Dave Bornsen
Grain Valley

Maybe the gunman learned a lesson. Maybe all those who prey on the law-abiding will take notice. You never know who is armed, and we are no longer going to be victims to thugs. It is time to take back our streets. The wave of violence reported in Kansas City every day has pushed passive citizens to action.

Be forewarned: Times are changing, and so are the laws. Now citizens are supported more and more by legislation to defend themselves and their property from thugs who prey on Joe Citizen.

To the man who was forced to shoot this thug: I know you will relive this moment the rest of your life. Sleep soundly. You did Kansas City and the world a service. Thanks!

Mark S. Leslie
Fort Leavenworth

Concealed guns in parks

The column “Concealed weapons in parks is dangerous idea” (7/15, Opinion) warned that that the sky would fall if the National Park Service allows licensed persons to carry guns in parks. Such Chicken Little hysterics are common whenever an area provides for concealed carry licenses.

The columnist does not cite any rash of shootings among license holders since Missouri began licensing, probably because there has been no such rash of shootings.

Persons who carry guns responsibly in state parks will do so in federal parks. The columnist may hate guns and he may hate gun owners, but the sky is not falling.

Kevin L. Jamison
Gladstone

Your right to carry a gun

Bruce Lindgren (6/29, Letters, “Handgun hypocrisy”) says that if Supreme Court justices want to allow handguns in the District of Columbia, then they should be allowed everywhere in the district, including federal buildings.

This is the height of ignorance in this country concerning handguns. The crime rate in Washington, D.C., has, for quite a while, been one of the highest in the nation. Yet Washington had had the most restrictive of handgun laws in this nation.

Does this tell you anything? Let me enlighten you. Criminals can and will always be able to get weapons.

The rights of the average law-abiding citizen to protect himself are in the U.S. Constitution. It’s called the Second Amendment.

This does not mean anyone can carry a gun into any public building that they want to — only that they have the right to protect themselves or their property.

Gary Parlier
Independence

Guns protect people on streets

I wonder if Bruce Lindgren (6/29, Letters) feels like the inside of the Supreme Court building is like some of the crime-ridden streets of our major cities. You need protection on the streets these days, but not inside the White House. Remember, there are guns inside D.C.’s public buildings. It’s just that only the security officers have them.

It makes sense to me to secure our public buildings from possible terrorist or criminal domestic attacks. The people on the streets are on their own and had better protect themselves.

Don Airington
Kansas City