Freedom should not mean unlimited access to weapons of war
As unspeakably horrific acts of gun violence continue to plague our nation, articles like “After Texas massacre, changes being made” (News, May 30) underscore a point that should not be lost on us.
Given the proposals being put forth by Republican leaders to harden school grounds, it is clear we can all agree (regardless of where we stand on particular gun laws) that none of our freedoms are absolute.
Thus the issue is not just which limits on freedom we are willing to live with, but which limits are most in keeping with the kind of society we want to live in.
If the choice is between placing greater restrictions on our freedom to move around openly on school campuses (to the point that schools essentially become armed camps) or placing more restrictions on our freedom to have unfettered access to weapons of war, I, for one, see the right choice as a no-brainer.
I can only hope certain political leaders are able to see as clearly.
SANJAY LAL, STOCKBRIDGE
Limit guns to those available when 2nd Amendment was ratified
It is way past time to limit gun ownership. When the Second Amendment to our Constitution was ratified, there were no organized police departments in this country until Boston’s organized in 1838. So the Second Amendment was written to guarantee that there would be citizens armed with muzzle-loaded (single-shot) muskets, rifles, or pistols, who could be called upon to pursue suspected criminals, runaway slaves and possible invasions, since we did not have a standing army. So let’s take a strict constructionist’s view and limit gun ownership to exactly what was possible when the Bill of Rights was ratified. We should outlaw all guns that are not single-shot, breech-loaded weapons and limit their usage only when those owners are called upon to join the local militia.
ROBERT ABRAHAM, MARIETTA
