Advertisement

Letters to the Editor - Feb. 23

February 23, 2011

Regulating gun ownership is the best way

To the editor:


This letter is in response to recent letters in reference to gun ownership. Let us begin with the U.S. Constitution. Article II of the Bill of Rights states: “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.”

Without reading anything into this, let’s define it as written, defining the key words. Using three separate dictionaries, a militia is defined as military trained civilians, citizen’s army, citizens not members of the regular armed forces. In my opinion, militia means trained citizens (the people) can bear (carry) arms (weapons).

So, it must be regulated. Article X states, powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states. In our case, Maryland, because the United States is not mentioned in Article II.

What I’m saying is, Maryland, or any other state, must regulate gun (weapons-arms) ownership. How is the state to do this?

My opinion, regulations must maintain a free state and not infringe (violate, encroach). All regulations must be written for the security of a free state for all citizens, not infringe.

But many will say that we cannot allow criminals to have weapons. No law can stop this. Besides, it would be unconstitutional. Criminals are citizens, too, until they are caught, tried and convicted.

Now we have someone in a different category. We have a convict and we can prevent convicts from keeping and bearing arms. It’s called prison. Once a convict, always a convict. But most convicts become citizens again, and therefore protected under Article II.

The solution: deal with the convict, not the weapons. Think about it, and remember, regulate not to infringe.

Steve Crist
Big Pool


The ethics of war is not the issue here


To the editor:


War is hell! Can we really afford to lose more of our young service members during hostile conflicts in some far-away land?

As a former warrior having spent time in a hostile fire zone, I’m aware of the bond that exists between men serving together. Confidence in your team members, mutual trust, respect and concern for each other’s welfare, promotes a bond that is much closer than with a sibling or a parent. A cohesive bond must exist to maintain a fighting spirit within your team and nothing should be clouding your judgment or performances.

The average member of our military can’t understand why a man would want to have sex with another man. Because of our human nature, we become afraid of things we can’t understand and later it changes to resentment. Next is hate. Do we really want to send our young men into that environment without the needed trust and cohesion to complete their mission as safely as possible.

The ethics of war is not at question here, but who our sons are sent into combat with is.
 
Carl Lewis
Hagerstown

Advertisement
The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|