[The Brazil Times nameplate] Mostly Cloudy ~ 78°F  
High: 89°F ~ Low: 73°F
Friday, Aug. 22, 2014

Reader responds to gun control letter

Sunday, February 3, 2013

To the Editor:

In response to: "A suggestion concerning gun control,"

I can agree with Mr. Page that regulating arms sales and possession is not a function of the federal government and additionally, due to the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, it is not the function of any lower level of government.

As a matter of fact, due to the phrase, "Shall not be infringed," included in the Second Amendment, no part of the Constitution, or lower body of law, can actually be used to restrict, impede, or otherwise regulate what arms (anything man-portable that may be used for offensive or defensive combat) a citizen may possess or carry at any time anywhere the Constitution is "the law of the land."

Americans have accepted the "rules" that have been passed cannot be laws as they conflict with the Second Amendment for so long that Americans do not even realize that they cannot be law.

However, the usage of offensive arms can and should be restricted by law to the proper time and place. We do not need someone target practicing on Main Street at midnight.

Mr. Page brings up another issue with his usage of the phrase, "military grade weapons."

It is the same issue as is muddled by the terms "assault rifle," and "assault weapon," that being that any weapon is "military grade," and capable of being used for the assault or defense in combat, guns, knives, shovels and even rocks.

Many a person has been killed with an assault entrenching tool, although it was never made specifically for that purpose, just as no modern rifle is made specifically to kill.

Firearms are made to pull bullets down range on target, the choice of target is always the choice of the user.

However, I must stand in total disagreement with Mr. Page on the suggestion that the unorganized militia of the United States be registered and issued an ID card that would allow them, and only those deemed fit to be militia to possess arms.

My first reasoning is that it would be cost prohibitive.

The second, and by far more importantly, is that it would be exclusionary to say that someone who may well not be able to meet the requirements set for duty cannot fight, be useful to a cause, or be stripped of the best means available to defend even their own person.

Mr. Page fails to realize just whom the Militia of the United States encompasses, although he does understand that the National Guard is militia.

Second 10 of the United States Code breaks the militia down into two distinct parts: The National Guard, which is the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

Who is the unorganized militia?

That, ladies and gentlemen, would be you and I, and would include anyone and everyone willing who could do just about anything, even the least of tasks.

I may not be able to walk 20 miles at pace with the more able-bodied, but I can push a button and talk on a radio, and if that frees up someone more able-bodied to do something more productive, if the militia is needed, I'm sure the help will be appreciated.

No, Mr. Page, President Obama and Governor Pence, and fellow citizens of the United States, and Indiana, the answer to gun control is the Second Amendment and the response to violence is for a good person to stop the bad ones.

The best method available today is a gun so let's put them in the hands of the good people.

After the violent people are stopped and if they survive, let us have laws and punishments that shows them, and anyone else contemplating the same type of actions, that society will not tolerate such behavior.

However, in those cases where the deranged perpetrator has planned to suicide after the deed, the only way to limit casualties is to start shooting him as soon as possible and the only person who can do that is the good person on the spot at the time.

Leo L. Southworth,

Brazil