Letter: Gun regulation does not equal bans

Just as Doug Johnson believes that Jean S. Smith’s letter deserves an answer, I believe his does, as well, about the fight over guns. He concludes that because the anti-gun crowd wants some gun control laws, it would be tantamount to an eventual elimination of all private gun ownership in the U.S. This is patently false.

Just from the practical side, can anyone imagine forcibly taking away over 200 million guns from gun owners in the country? It’s absurd. And this from someone who respects the Constitution? Has he forgotten what the words of the Second Amendment actually say? “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of the state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” A well-regulated militia. Where is that well-regulated militia today? I haven’t seen any indication from the NRA that it recognizes any gun regulation.

What was intended by the founding fathers as a right and a duty of property owners in the community to form into armed units to protect their homes and businesses from Indians and troublemakers has morphed into something the founding fathers never dreamed of. In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the well-regulated militia was the National Guard.

Now it is gone with the wind. I can’t speak for everyone on this issue, but I would be totally against depriving citizens from having and bearing arms. Why? Because the Constitution tells us so. But it was both a collective right and a private right. It was a collective right for citizens to defend their towns and villages for lack of an effective standing army and a private right to hunt for game in the forests surrounding them.

Now, we do have a standing army and a national guard. There is no need for private armies. Anyone can own a gun. Anyone can hunt to his heart’s intent. Now, in many states, there are carry laws that enable gun owners to tote a holstered gun around in almost any place they choose to do so. What more would gun owners want?

This is the difference between being privileged and being deprived.

Even someone such as Doug Johnson with his towering IQ should know better than to suggest that gun owners have saved millions of lives here, and then in the same breath that most of these saved lives were due to Japanese reluctance to invade the U.S. mainland due to so much gun ownership. This is totally loony tunes. The Japanese had over a million soldiers in China and had plans to conquer Southeast Asia, never the U.S. So not even hypothetical lives were saved.

Steve McMurray

retired art director

River Ridge