I disagree with Dr. Gregory Jarrin's response to Lee Hendrickson's letter to the editor about gun control. If those peoples' right to own guns had not been taken away, they may have been able to prevent the installation of autocratic and authoritarian governments.

Enacting laws that reduce or eliminate the rights of the people is authoritarian government. That is NOT America. We are a nation of laws, ruled by those laws, with separation of powers in our government structure, established by the Constitution, so that sort of thing never happens.

America is the greatest country in the world because of our constitutional rights. Taking away those rights will destroy this country.

Gun control laws won't stop criminals from committing crimes with guns. They will infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.


Rick Singleton,


(3) comments


Some city's in the USA have tight gun laws. Well boys and girls the criminals still have the ways and means to obtain firearms. Whether then steel them or buy them in the underground. Some think it is the projectile that comes out of the barrel as the problem. Well that projectile (bullet) had to be directed out of the barrel by the criminal. I do not think the government could ever have complete gun control especially when some folk in the country want law enforcement to be defunded. So we the citizens have to protect ourselves.

Concerned Conservative

Why do we have laws that make murder illegal, criminals will still commit murder?


"Gun control laws won't stop criminals from committing crimes with guns. They will infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens." You are correct Rick, but neither will allowing criminals to have access to more guns stop criminals from committing crimes. You see that every day, every hour of the day in the news. Law abidding citizens getting killed with the end result being, they no longer have their lives nor do they have their constitutional rights anymore. Gone are the days when our country was not saturated with firearms, that two law abidding citizens who got into a disagreement, settled it with their fists. Nowadays, small, stupid disagreements are settled with guns. That is called gun paranoia, where a law- abidding person thinks that every other law- abidding person in the world is out to get them, so they need bigger, faster, deadlier guns to defend themselves.


"Like most rights,the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited." Although, we do not undertake an exhaustive historical anaylsis today of the full scope of the second amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recongnize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. "Miller" said as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in "common use at the time." We think that

limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

This decision, was given by a republican conservative majority Supreme Court and

the opinion by a conservative-constitutionalist republican Justice Scalia in the "Heller v DC" case.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.