Dear Senator Taylor,
The Second Amendment specifically refers to military weapons - NOT hunting rifles and shotguns.
The
whole intent of the Second Amendment is that the people - the militia,
in particular, which was in the days of the Founders, defined as
able-bodied males of the ages normally enlisted in armies, should have
the proper tools to defend their communities from invasion or other
dangers. The proper tools of the times were those weapons in common use
by the British Army.
Obviously,
the Founders could not conceive of modern weapons, but the intent is
clear - the right of the people to keep and bear arms (common to the
armies of the day), shall not be infringed.
Our
Revolution was armed by guns owned by private citizens, and captured
from the British. Some artillery was supplied by private citizens, as
were the first US naval ships. We would all be speaking the Queen's
English at tea today if it were not for those militia weapons held by
private citizens.
Today,
this does not mean shotguns and hunting rifles. It means military main
battle rifles such as the M1 Garand and .50 caliber sniper rifles,
select-fire weapons such as the M16 and M4, pistols, trench shotguns,
mortars, and man-portable machine guns.
Here
in Wisconsin, the people already own thousands of these weapons,
including some full-auto and select-fire guns. These are not going away
even if an "assault weapons" ban is enacted here.
Look
at the real statistics for crimes. "Assault weapons" account for a very
small number of crimes. Unfortunately, most of this miniscule number is
high-profile multiple shootings, usually committed in so-called "gun free" areas.
The Second Amendment cannot be respected by banning the very weapons it is meant to protect.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
Beloit, WI
No comments:
Post a Comment