I cannot agree with Mr. Richard Evanson and his June 24 letter, "Gun ownership rights are essential to freedom." I believe an educated populace is more essential to freedom and democracy.
He accurately quotes the whole of the Second Amendment that covers gun ownership, but leans heavily on the second part of the statement, which he interprets as meaning everyone has a "right" to own a gun with some few exceptions, and conveniently forgets the first part of that sentence.
When the authors of the Bill of Rights added that to the Constitution, they did not anticipate a large permanent standing military such as we have today but considered that able-bodied men should be part of organized state militias that could be called-up or mobilized in an emergency; and those men were expected to provide their own weapons if they had them.
If they did not have them, they could draw them from local armories, which is what the British set out to capture at Lexington and Concord back in 1775. Over time this system evolved into the states' National Guard we know today.
Never miss a local story.
I agree that every competent person should be able to own a gun for sporting purposes, a hunting rifle, shotgun, pistol for target shooting, and even for self-protection in the home, etc.
I disagree that people should be permitted to buy weapons that are specifically military by character and application. They are not toys.
I see no threat to freedom from registering or regulating the types of guns available to the civil population.
Sandra J. Gander