High Court was right on gun decision
By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns wasn’t too much of a surprise, because the 2nd Amendment clearly gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. It goes like this: “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.”
Some people say the first part of the amendment, the part about a well-regulated militia, trumps the second part. Well, they are wrong. You could not raise a militia from among an unarmed populace.
Gun foes say, “Why would we need a militia?” My answer to them is, ask the people who wrote the amendment. They secured our freedom in the first place. If you don’t like the amendment, work to get it overturned. But don’t argue that the writers of the Constitution didn’t know what they were talking about when they gave the people the right to keep and bear arms.
That having been said, you have to sympathize with people who have to deal with the effects of irrational and unreasonable use of guns in our society. Forget that old National Rifle Association saw that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. That’s a lie. Guns do kill, and that’s why people buy them.
We regulate the use of automobiles, which also kill people — more than guns, actually — what’s wrong with regulating the use of firearms? What’s wrong with requiring lessons in gun safety, just as we require lessons in how to drive? What’s wrong with requiring gun owners to prove, at a licensed and regulated range, that they know how to shoot straight? You want to save lives? That would do it.
We don’t need to ban guns if people are trained in their use, and carry a renewable license that proves it.
