Quantcast
Home | Back

Bare arms, too

Share Story:     Share_email E-mail Story    |    Share_print Print Story    |    Comments    |   

June 28, 2009

In the United States, we have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. With that right comes the responsibility of the government to regulate the size, type and power of these arms, as well as the qualifications, mental stability and competence of those who would own them.

When the constitution was written, the "arms" that were owned by the common people were flintlocks that were crude, slow and inaccurate by today's standards. It therefore follows that reasonable limits should be placed on the manufacture and ownership of high-powered, multi-round guns and other armaments designed for military usage.

Guns don't kill people, people do. Therefore we also have the responsibility to bare arms. Those of us who are unarmed have as much right to know who is "packing heat" as anyone does to carry a weapon. While criminals will always carry concealed weapons, as more and more people purchase guns I want to know who is "loaded for bear" so that I might avoid a potentially life-threatening situation. Most murders are crimes of passion, and I do not want to be found on the passionate end of a bullet.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms and it grants society the responsibility to have a "well regulated militia" of gun owners.

Rick Hawksley

Kent




Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. Recordpub.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

Login above or Register to comment.
Jump to Page: 1 2
Previous 10 Comments    of 16 Total Comments
6.
    Posted by marysmtt June 30, 2009
What is an eggman? And is everyone fussing about Hawksley?

5.
    Posted by nroosa20012 June 29, 2009
No, I am the real Mr. Hawksley. You are the Eggman.

4.
    Posted by owens1973 June 28, 2009
I am the real Mr. Hawksley.

3.
    Posted by High Holy Grand Poo-Bah June 28, 2009
The_Exposer,
There are things in this leter that I disagree with. I only point this out to let you know that this is a great example to let you know (again) that I am not Mr. Hawksley.

2.
    Posted by The Liberal Exposer June 28, 2009
The High Holy Ricky gets a letter printed (albeit sophmoric and full of illogical liberal whining). Congrats Ricky boy. I'll save the page and line the birdcage with it. Oh wait, your're the bird!

1.
    Posted by Nanny_Society June 28, 2009
This is incomprehensible. Is it some sort of clever wordplay chocked full of non-sequiturs and oxymorons?

You made a brief statement of an obvious fact and have not presented any reasoning: "It therefore follows..." Non-sequitur!

Since grants are privileges and responsibilities are requirements,"... grants society the responsibility..." is self-contradictory. Oxymoron!

And just what is "bare arms" intended to mean? Let him rave on that all may know him to be mad.

Previous 10 Comments   | Home | Back