To the editor:
Because our Supreme Court ruled it quite legal for a lot more money to be involved in the election of our politicians, few can object to the power that the NRA exercises in the proliferation of rifles in our country. We can regret that there isn’t another organization with similar power so that there could be a good debate over whether there should be any guns at all in our country, which indisputably is a right in our Second Amendment.
The debate would invite an examination of the facts that it was almost 230 years ago, 1791, when our founding fathers created the Second Amendment. Theirs was a reasonable act at the time; the nation had just been formed, there was the possibility, if not probability, that either England would start a fight again with us, that some in the colonies might wish to rebel, or there was fear that guns would be needed to fight the then-called Indians.
There was no strong police, army, etc. to guarantee citizens protection. Further justification of the Second Amendment is that the population at the time was about four million, not over 330 million as it is today.
Our Constitution does not allow or ban AR-15s; each state is empowered to decide what it wants. The NRA does not have to debate an equally powerful organization over whether there should be any guns around in 2018; rather, it has the overwhelming advantage today of just arguing for AR-15s, tomorrow machine guns, farther in the future, hand grenades, tanks, etc., all of which can easily be justified if citizens are convinced they are at war with each other and there are no police, no sheriffs, no National Guard, no military to protect them.
We should not begrudge the NRA. We should strive to make the case of what America will become if we do not have a good debate about the Second Amendment in today’s world.
Booker C. Peek