Second Amendment defended

This is in response to a letter to the editor written by Louis Campbell on his point to “ignore the gun lobbyists.” There are several points he tries to make, but I would like to offer some information that wasn’t mentioned or considered in his letter.

Yes, the minutemen used muskets, but that’s where he tends to get off track. Those muskets used by the minutemen were the same basic variety that were used by the Continental Army. He goes on to say “we now have a standing army,” which implies we did not have one back then, but the thing is, we had one back then, as well (I again mention the “Continental Army”).

He also says, “I doubt that our Founding Fathers, even in their wildest dreams, could foresee a weapon capable of firing 30 rounds in a second.” Now, I can’t say for sure this is true, but one has to ask themselves this: If these men could see the necessity for and create a document as brilliant as the Constitution, I would have to imagine they were aware of the advancements the future would be capable of bringing, especially when you have a man such as Benjamin Franklin in their presence.

I would like to point out the National Guard is run by and under the direct control of the government of the United States, which is exactly why the Second Amendment was put in place. How can a people effectively protect themselves from a corrupt government if the government is in charge of the force he believes is the one that is there to protect them?

I refer back to his statement, “I think it important that we note the punctuation of the amendment if we are to understand its meaning.” Let’s do that, shall we? It reads as follows: “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.”

I then ask: Why does it not read as “the right of the militia to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed”?

It doesn’t, because they actually meant every person in this country has the right to keep and bear arms.

And lastly, anyone who uses the argument of “nobody really has a need for a military type weapon” needs to consider this point. By that logic, we need to outlaw every Corvette, Camaro, Firebird and every other muscle or sports car ever made. The speed limit is anywhere between 5 and 85 in this country. Why does anyone need a car that is capable of topping speeds of about 180 miles an hour? Not to mention that fatalities by automobile accidents far outnumber the deaths that are a result of firearms on an annual basis.

The problem in this country isn’t the guns, it’s the people who firmly wish to not acknowledge actual data and base opinions on the real world. If stronger gun control is the answer, I would like someone to explain to me why the violent crime rate in Chicago and areas like that, with some of the toughest gun laws, have the highest crime rates overall.

Robert Wilkinson,