Reader's View: 2nd Amendment allows sensible rules
Though well-stated, the March 24 letter, "Hey students, what about texting, driving?" was not well-reasoned due to a preponderance of logical fallacies. Texting while driving is an issue; however, it is an issue unrelated to student protests about gun violence. That is a tu quoque fallacy; however, rather than provide a gloss on the basics of logic and fallacies, I'll simply address a few of the letter's arguments.
It stated that the Constitution contains "no right to (feel) 'safe.'" This, too, is true if misleading. The Constitution is not the only document concerning our rights as Americans: The Declaration of Independence provides three inalienable rights — "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Our current gun laws — or, more properly, the lack thereof — too oft impinge upon the inalienable rights to life and the pursuit of happiness.
As concerns the constitutional "right to bear arms" — the Second Amendment, in its entirety, reads, "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." Why then is militia membership not a requirement of firearm ownership? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a militia as "a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency." There is no current organizational requirement for gun ownership: Though membership in the propaganda arm (the NRA) of the for-profit gun industry is high. Again, that last bit, "to call only in emergency," what if, as is currently the situation, the emergency stems from the guns themselves?
Fighting firearms with firearms can only smother the flames with bodies. The point being that we do not follow the Second Amendment to the letter, so why not consider the sensible: comprehensive background checks, insurance, longer waiting periods, registration, and required training, etc.?
Eric S. Anderson