Thursday's letters: No armed guards
Published: Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 7:02 p.m.
To the editor: There are some who propose the use of armed guards as protection of our schoolchildren. Given that the latest shootings in California were perpetrated by a recently laid-off police officer, and as the parent of two children just starting school, I am absolutely against the presence of any firearms in the school or on or near the property, even by those who are supposed to be in a protective role.
The California case illustrates clearly that even those we trust most cannot be trusted.
To the editor: Let’s talk turkey about the Second Amendment. It wasn’t written so Daniel Boone could shoot a bear, or so settlers could hold marksmanship contests. Sweet Wonderfuls would have you believe this so they can say, “Oh, yeah, we support the Second Amendment, but only so y’all can hunt and skeet-shoot.”
First things first. If freedom means anything, it means freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience means nothing if you cannot speak out. They’re linked. So they’re together in the First Amendment.
Next, what did the Founders fear most? Government! So should we. Certainly, we see around the world the consequences of governments out of control. The Founders knew that government, by its nature, is relentless.
The Second Amendment was written because it is necessary to protect the First Amendment; so, push come to shove, we can rise up against tyranny. That’s why it’s there. Don’t let the Sweet Wonderfuls fool you.
Those who chafe at the bonds of the Second Amendment aren’t really comfortable with the First Amendment, either, or pretty much anything else in the Constitution. More later.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.