Letter to the Editor

Let’s agree to disagree

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 8:45am

Dear Editor:

I’m not sure how the words of Rahm Emanuel, the embattled mayor of Chicago can explain the use of the term “good crisis” for the killing of innocent people including children.  They were only going about enjoying their First Amendment rights.

The battle over the Second Amendment has been going on from the time it was written. I can understand the logic of this amendment in 1789. The continental army disbanded after the treaty of Paris in 1783, I’m sure a fear of another country taking over when the British left was in the minds of drafting this amendment. With a well-regulated militia no longer in existence the people needed their guns. Today we have a well-established military that does a fantastic job of protecting us, as do the police force of our towns. 

I guess I don’t understand the need today for a well-armed people. I have no problems with people having guns, but I don’t understand the need for all types of guns that people have today. We’ll never stop criminals from getting the types of guns they use for mass murder. But maybe if it wasn’t so easy for them to get them the numbers of mass murders would be different. Why does anyone need an assault weapon that can today be purchased in any corner gun shop?

Just as with the Eighteenth Amendment, amendments can be changed as times change. I couldn’t find any reference to fighting over that particular amendment change. Must be different for the Second Amendment.

Everyone I’m sure interprets each amendment differently.  That also is a right in this country. So I’ll just say that no matter what the pro-gun side can say about the rights to own any weapon made today, I will disagree. I don’t disagree with the right to bear arms, just the type arms we bear. I also know that they will continue to disagree with me. 

In other words, I agree to disagree.    

Wally Reed

Boothbay Harbor