In his April 27 opinion piece “Protecting citizen's rights,” Lowman S. Henry misleads, obliquely urging citizens to rise up against the United States for fear the government might try to “get us.” The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty only restricts sales of certain specific types of weapons.
While deciding to ratify the Constitution, the North had concerns about establishing a standing army and wanted well-regulated citizen-militias, instead, to continue in defense of the states and nation. The South wanted its militias to remain, to fight when needed, but usually to help recover escaped slaves. Remember, Thomas Jefferson kept slaves all his life because they provided him profit, “the price of Liberty” notwithstanding. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...” was the first part of the result.
We now have a standing military. So much for the concerns of the North. As a result of the Civil War, we no longer — thankfully — accept slavery or the right to own slaves. So much for the concerns of the South.
I do not believe that a private citizen should own military-style weaponry nor an armory of weapons. A background check to vet the criminal and insane with a waiting period to hinder those quick to anger seems to be common sense to me.
Let's find the points of rational regulation and agree to laws and enforcement to protect everybody from the violence of madmen and criminals.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Gross in 45th
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Watson in 33rd
- Deepening divide
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Wake up, voters
- Wolf is the right choice
- Embrace domestic energy production