This letter is about gun control and “rights versus reason.” When the writers of the Constitution included the phrase “right to keep and bear arms,” the word “arms,” meaning firearms, referred to single shot muzzle loading flintlocks, not today’s modern weapons. Since any debate or legal action concerning a constitutional right includes the intent or mindset of the framers of the constitution, is it reasonable to consider the “right to bear arms” to include any weapon manufactured? Should the average citizen have the “right to keep and bear nuclear arms?”
Weapons for military use are designed to produce mass destruction and high body counts. Civilian versions of these weapons serve the same purpose. This is the attraction. People who purchase or desire to own assault-type rifles or pistols, high-power, rapid-fire weapons with high-capacity clips that can be emptied and reloaded in seconds, are thinking about human targets, not deer, rabbits, squirrels, ducks and other game. In other words, make my day, not my dinner.
Not having access to assault-type weapons will not impede any right to self-defense or hunting. In the right hands, a gun designed to take down a deer or squirrel will definitely take down a human whose intent is to do bodily harm or commit a crime that may result in injury or death to the victim of said crime. In the wrong hands, any weapon is dangerous, especially those designed for mass annihilation.