The only thing that guarantees the first amendment is the second amendment

Dear Editor:

In response to Ken Vaselaar’s letter in the April 10 edition on the gun control debate, I have a few questions/comments for Ken.

First, what right do you have to say anything? Surely not your first amendment rights, because you said the constitution (Bill of Rights) is a living document whose principles must be applied to current circumstances.

If you don’t believe in the second amendment, what makes you think you have a right to the first? It is not debatable if the second amendment allows private ownership of guns; that is expressly what it is for. And it is not referring to guns for hunting; that was a given in that era. It was meant for self defense, especially against a tyrannical government, which our forefathers had just overthrown. If the liberals of the time had won out, we would still be British subjects.

Registering guns is just the first step in confiscating them, which I get the feeling you wouldn’t mind. I wonder what else we should ban? When Jarod Loughner shot Gabby Giffords he drove a car to get there. Cars are already registered, like you said, so maybe we should ban them, and bad guys wouldn’t be able to get to their targets. What if Jarod Loughner had simply driven his car through the crowd at high speed? He certainly could have done a lot more damage.

According to F.B.I, statistics, more people are killed with hammers and clubs every year than rifles, so do we register our hammers and keep them locked up? There are better solutions, such as the permit to buy you already need to purchase a handgun. Just show the permit, and no registration. We are not a communist country yet, but we seem to be getting closer.

In the words of Wayne LaPierre, vice president of the N.R.A., “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” And remember, Ken, the only thing that guarantees the first amendment is the second amendment.

Glenn C. Kampa