For the next 30 days, we’re providing free access to non-subscribers so you can see what we have to offer. And if you subscribe by June 1, you’ll get a 25% discount on your subscription!
We hope you’ll like what you see and want to support local media.
Click here to start a new subscription
Haven’t the tragic events of the last few months involving shootings, vehicle assaults and other attacks once again conclusively proven that ‘on a daily basis our government cannot protect us’? Isn’t it up to all citizens to protect themselves from harm? Why do so many misguided Americans want to limit, take away, or change our right to bear arms? A right that “Shall Not Be Infringed.”
Each year in the United States firearms are used anywhere from 80,000 to over 2 million times (depending on who is doing the figuring) by individuals protecting themselves from harm (DGU – defensive gun use excluding police), often by only showing the firearm. Even the left leaning magazine Politico in 2015 has admitted that the figure may be as high as two million and has admitted that DGU may be underestimated.
The 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution not only for personal protection, but for protection against governmental abuse and control. (I don’t think we have that one figured out yet). There are several sections in the Federalist Papers and a little-known set of books called “Debates in the Convention of 1787” that will give you the original thinking of our founding fathers.
Excluding Bump stocks and other such things, can we afford to lose our right to bear the arms of our choice? Based on Constitutional thinking shouldn’t these weapons be what a military would use? Doesn’t this mean we should protect the constitutional right to own any self-loading weapon?
William F Hineser,Arvada
We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.