When our country's Constitution was drawn up, the right to bear arms was in it. We had flintlock muskets, bows and arrows, knives and clubs as weapons back then. Knives could be hidden on a person, but the rest were too big to hide. Our country was just being developed; we had no standing army, police departments or any public law enforcement. We did have enemies, so we had to take care of ourselves as best we could.
Now, things are different. We have armies and law enforcement throughout the nation, and really no need to be concerned about our safety.
However, we can get a permit to carry a pistol if there is proof we really need it.
We really need to define what this right to bear arms means at this stage in our country's history. Is there a need for citizens to be able to own machine guns, assault rifles or other weapons capable of being used to commit mass murder?
A small percentage of our firearm owners seem to think so, but most hunters who own firearms don't. As one of this group, I hardly ever load more than three rounds in my rifle. For waterfowl I have to have a plug in my shotgun to limit it to three rounds.
ADVERTISEMENT
So what is really wrong with making it harder for lawless people to kill our fellow Americans? People say criminals can still find a way to kill; but with a ban on assault weapons, perhaps the toll would be less.
We did have a ban on assault weapons when President Bill Clinton was in office, but it expired during President George W. Bush's term.
Chester E. Haataja
Esko
