Touching on the Second


After this last terrible shooting in the school in Newtown, Conn., we can expect some kind of action from the president in regard to gun control. We can also expect reaction from the NRA.

The Second Amendment: “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.” I wholeheartedly agree with the founders and will fight to keep the amendment in place.

When this amendment was written in the 18th century, the only arms known were the sword, the muzzle loader rifle and pistol. Both of these firearms were single shot, they were heavy, awkward and took several seconds to reload. I don’t believe even Ben Franklin, who I believe possessed the greatest foresight of the time, could have foreseen how far advanced those muzzle loaders would become.

We might visualize today a gunman walking into a crowded area armed with a muzzle loader rifle and pistol. How many shots would he get off before he was taken down? Today, a .22 caliber revolver is a deadly weapon. Would this weapon satisfy the founders at that time? I believe it would, because it would be a hundred times more efficient than what was then available. The Founding Fathers would leave the type of weapons to the discretion of future generations.

This brings us to the touchy situation facing us today. If we remove weapons from the public that are not needed and have been responsible for so many deaths are we ignoring the Second Amendment? I think not, because we haven’t in any way removed the teeth from the amendment.

However, we should be careful that certain elements from the far left who are working to change the Constitution into a living document do not look upon any restriction of weapons as a green light, allowing them to attack other segments of the document.

The question before us today? Do we need high velocity full- and semi-automatic rifles to protect our families and homes?

Leon White