Constitution never sanctioned gunslingers

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Our Constitution’s Second Amendment links the right to bear arms to maintenance of a well-regulated militia. In this country, we do have well-regulated police and armed services comprising citizens who are trained professionals — experts at keeping the peace, not destroying it.

Their decisions and actions very often rely on analysis of information and group decision-making. Their vetted decisions are filtered through an acknowledged chain of command, and only then are individuals permitted to discharge their firearms in accordance with an overall strategy.

It seems our municipal entities comply with Constitutional parameters; individual gunslingers do not.The language of the amendment discusses “the right to keep and bear arms,” which does not equate to an automatic right to blow people to smithereens. The focus of the amendment is “the security of a free state,” not the self-indulgent whims of a few renegade individuals. Guns empower those who are weak and provide an advantage to those who are cowardly. Guns remove shooters to a conveniently safe distance from conflict, where they can inflict grievous harm upon others while incurring minimal or no risk to themselves.

Heaven forbid they should instead influence events through courteous discussion and the power of their reasoning. Because of our increasingly violent tendencies, gun ownership today sends intimidating messages to unarmed citizens. Knowing that our neighbors are armed to the teeth does not promote a shared sense of community. It is divisive. And, haven’t we always felt sorry for countries that have devolved into conflicting, armed vigilante factions?

Bottom line: many of us feel that our current permissive approach to gun ownership is dangerous, sociologically out-of-touch, and totally without sanction in our Constitution. We would endorse a level of gun control that would —for starters — prevent children from being shot in their schools, would protect churchgoers from indiscriminate slaughter, and would safeguard the “freedom from fear” that we all seek.

LINDA JENKS

Grand Junction


County attorney’s legal counsel should come under scrutiny

After reading the Thursday editorial concerning our county commissioners, former county administrator and county attorney, the first thing to come to my mind is, why doesn’t their malpractice insurance pay this settlement?

I think its pretty obvious these parties conspired to violate the law. I think we need a new county attorney. One who doesn’t advise clients to violate both the law and the public confidence. I also think all five of these conspirators need to hold their own noses. If our county attorney advised his clients to violate the law he needs to face disbarment!

JOHN A. IJAMS

Grand Junction


Duplicity abounds among those making political points

I hear arguments from three differents groups making points that are actually opposite to their talking points.

Take those persons arguing that representatives shouldn’t decide how a president is elected. It should be decided directly by the people. Once on the ballot, these same people will argue against people deciding directly who will be president. Duplicity.

And where is the tea party when you have a singular person deciding when, where and how much tariff/tax is going to be levied? Parliament removed this kind of taxing power from their monarch hundreds of years before George III. Duplicity.

A repentant and loving heart are Christian characteristics. Measure First Corinthians (that’s first not one) Thirteenth (“Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;) (verses 4-6) against the person Donald Trump. More duplicity.

ALDEN HISLOP

Grand Junction


Money to overturn popular vote should arouse suspicion

I don’t know about everyone else, but I get very suspicious when I see big money being poured into a political cause. I’m most suspicious of the people who have spent big money putting the popular vote on the ballot.

I feel confident that the governor and the Legislature were truly looking out for us Coloradans when they recently passed a bill to have Colorado join the popular vote compact, and it seems like the rich, corrupt groups must feel threatened by us voters. It makes you wonder what they fear, and it motivates me to be even more dedicated in my support of the popular vote.

I’m definitely voting to keep the popular vote, and I hope every Coloradan will, too!

STEVE SCHWEITZER

Wheat Ridge

Recommended for you