No restrictions on speech, guns

To the editor:

In response to “Embracing rather than arming” (July 2/3), I couldn’t believe what I was reading. In one line the writer states she wouldn’t personally have guns in her home and then later suggests “sensible gun control” taking away my rights. What if we mandated sensible home defense and every home had to have guns? The NRA has no right to “enforce” responsible gun ownership.

Twice in her writing she uses the term “our democracy.” She must not be a U.S. citizen because we do not live in a democracy but in a constitutional republic. Are our schools even teaching this any more?

People often repeat words used by the media who don’t have a clue about that which they are reporting. “Assault weapons” are fully automatic and are already controlled by the government (unconstitutionally), and semi-automatic are what most law-abiding citizens rightfully own. Don’t confuse the two.

Back to “sensible gun control legislation,” the federal government has no authority to ever consider legislation on guns or ammunition. The right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right as a free people. If the government is allowed to legislate the Second Amendment, it can legislate all of our rights.

Next the writer suggests that we need to stop the “hate rhetoric.” Free speech is free speech. Politically correct speech needs no protection. I’m not condoning being intentionally offensive, but let’s protect free speech as closely as all of our other rights. I ask the writer, is embracing each other a request for tolerance? Tolerance is being tolerant of things that are not good because nobody is being asked to be tolerant of those things which are good, it isn’t necessary.

Liberty first.

Randy McClellan