Reasonable Limits on Guns
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
In "What the Second Amendment Means" [letters, Oct. 5], Lawrence W. Watthey did what so many supporters of gun rights do, and what The Post's editorial board did as well, which is to quote only part of the amendment.
The entire amendment governs our right to bear arms, and it 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."
The larger point that gets missed is that rational restrictions do not infringe on the right to own a gun. Restrictions on many of our rights are accepted as reasonable to ensure public safety. To argue that a waiting period or a trigger lock restricts a law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun is preposterous, as neither these nor other regulations -- such as prohibiting armor-piercing bullets -- stop a person from legally buying a gun.
As Mr. Watthey pointed out, we have restrictions on the right to free speech, despite the same language -- "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" -- in the First Amendment. If the government can place restrictions on speech for public safety reasons, then surely it has the same power with regard to gun ownership.
MIKE EPSTEIN
Washington
