Letters to the editor June 28

Gun violence

Dear Sen. Daines,

On June 14 of last year, you introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which would limit the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment by prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

As you stated, “The American flag is a symbol of liberty and a beacon of hope … a representation of freedom.”

If amending the Constitution to limit the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, in order to protect a symbol of freedom, is justified, then you must concede that regulation of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, in order to protect the lives of innocent Americans, is not only justified, but required in order to insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare.

Gun violence in the United States is a problem that needs a solution more substantial than “thoughts and prayers.”

I was raised to believe that rights come with responsibilities. If we truly value the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, then we need to be responsible enough to acknowledge that gun violence is a problem. We need to be responsible enough to address the problems created by a lack of regulation of gun rights for those who are not responsible and therefore should not be entrusted with gun ownership.

— David G. Englund, Basin

Shall not be infringed

It is truly despicable that the hard-won freedom of the people to keep and bear arms is being attacked by the very government established to protect that God-given right. That we are even having such a “gun debate” is a testament to just how craven and depraved our secular society has become.

During the 1950s and 60s in America, gun ownership per capita was even greater than it is today. There was a large surplus of semi-automatic rifles like M-1 carbines and Garands in the hands of the citizenry. The M-1 carbine was readily available with 20-round magazines.

Yet, even with all of this World War II firepower, there was not a single school shooting during this time because of the availability of these and other semi-automatic firearms. Why? Could it be that a liberal society has since stripped away personal responsibility and accountability, excusing and rewarding bad behavior?

Could the federal government kicking God out of school in 1963 have encouraged the moral turpitude that leads our children to believe all things are permissible? Has the epidemic of divorce, fanatical feminism and replacing the breadwinner with a welfare check from Uncle Sam destroyed the building block of society – the nuclear family?

Have broken homes led to broken young minds filled with anger and desperation? Could the psychotropic drugs being dispensed like candy to “difficult” adolescent boys be triggering this homicidal behavior?

Could these school shootings be a product of a social shift to more progressive policies that undermine the responsibility of parents to teach their children right from wrong?

Contrary to the espoused liberal claptrap, it doesn’t take a village to raise a child – it takes a responsible father and mother.

What has changed in America to cause these school shootings? What has happened to our children? Still cloaked in the innocence of youth, what would possess any of them to perpetrate such evil?

We harden our banks to protect our money, why do we not harden our schools to protect our most precious resource, our children? If we cannot protect our children at school, then perhaps we should rethink public education and use our advanced technology to create a virtual school at home.

And why would a nation once filled with the Spirit of 1776 be willing to surrender its Second Amendment right to self-defense, along with its 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th Amendment rights, to a federal government that is not concerned with freedom and justice, but only in expanding its power and control over we the people?

Are we being governed or ruled? Are we experiencing the death throes of our Constitutional Republic?

This political assault on our Bill of Rights should be a battle cry for every freedom-loving American. Or have we forgotten that the first shot heard round the world rang out when the tyrants came for our guns and ammunition?

“Shall not be infringed,” means just what it says. It does not require interpretation by politicians, bureaucrats or supreme court justices. We allow the government to turn our unalienable rights into privileges at our own peril.

— Richard Grozik, Kalispell