Written in 1791, back when the guns available included a flintlock rifle that could fire one bullet every minute if you were a quick reloader, the Second Amendment is often quoted when gun regulations are discussed. I am a hunter, and appreciate that the right to bear arms has its place in a democratic society. However, George Fogg’s citing of the Second Amendment in his letter last week doesn’t justify lambasting a balanced and thoughtful letter from Bob Roffler.
By Fogg’s logic, I should be able to carry a nuclear weapon to the grocery store as a law-abiding, mentally stable citizen with no criminal record. To tone it down, should I be able to carry a Glock handgun with an exchangeable clip that allows me to fire 33 bullets in a matter of seconds? Concealed handguns such as the Glock do little to make any of us safer. A person’s present mental stability doesn’t guarantee his or her future sanity. I always enjoy hearing Fogg’s comments at Town Meeting, but I disagree with him here. There exists a balanced policy which will allow the Second Amendment to persevere while doing away with anyone’s right to carry a weapon capable of mass, indiscriminate destruction.
Dr. Steve Barr
North Yarmouth
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.