By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Talking guns
Placeholder Image

Dear Editor,
I am amazed at how much attention our US. Constitution has received lately, particularly the second amendment. The second amendment to the Constitution is not the most important (that’s why it is the second), and like the first amendment, it should have its limitations. Just like you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded place or slander someone and call it free speech, the second amendment needs to have some limitations. Already in some states someone convicted of a felony is not allowed to legally have a gun, even if the felony was not gun-related.
When I was 13 my family moved to a remote farm which was surrounded by sagebrush, jackrabbits, and rattlesnakes. My father bought me a 22 “semi-automatic” rifle which was useful for hunting in that setting. Its magazine held eight bullets. Compare that to the assault rifles of today which are not good for hunting. The only purpose of an AR gun is to kill people-a lot of people-quickly. The writers of our Constitution did not have AR rifles on their minds. They were thinking about single-shot muskets and bayonets and their recently experienced Revolutionary War. Repeating rifles were not invented yet, so allowing such weapons was never their intention. My rifle was helpful at one time, but now that I live in town, I do not need to own a gun. I now have hired guns-they are called the police.
Today no civilian needs an AR weapon; those are for soldiers and war. Some people say that guns are not what kill people. If the youngster in Florida had gone into that school with hate in his heart and a knife in his hand, 17 people would not have died. Maybe one, but he would have been stopped. The gun made the difference.
Free access to assault weapons designed only for the purpose of killing people is stealing our basic freedoms: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Dee Anne Grummon
Great Bend