Banning handguns is unconstitutional

The founding fathers had just (miraculously) secured their liberty from the country that had been home to the world’s mightiest army for more than 300 years.

Of course they wanted the militia to “keep and bear arms” equal to what the army of the day had. And not just the militia. That’s why they chose the wording they did.

The Second Amendment doesn’t say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms …” They wanted the PEOPLE to be able to defend themselves, especially from tyrannical government. They wanted them to be able to defend themselves from threats to their life and liberty.

It has been said, “Choose which you desire more, liberty or peace, because you can’t long enjoy both.”

Mark Jensen
Wellsville, Utah

Shooting other human beings is a legitimate and necessary use of a firearm. Modern guns versus flintlocks and swords is not the issue, otherwise we’d be allowed to wear a sword and carry a brace of double-barreled flintlock pistols in New York City, Chicago and D.C. for use against muggers and rapists. Nor are accidents the issue; if it were, we’d first ban backyard swimming pools, which are more likely to result in an accidental death of a child.

No, the issue is the right to privacy (from burglars) in our homes, the right to control our own bodies (despite the intent of rapists) and the freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures (violated by every thief and robber).

These are constitutional rights, and the government should not be allowed to use third-party criminals to make us give them up.

Frank Silbermann, Memphis, Tenn.