Letter: Responsible Leadership Needed on Guns

Dear Editor,

In an attempt at full disclosure let me state I enjoy the privileges bestowed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution concerning the "right to bear arms", I own weapons. Included in the list are 2 rifles, 3 pistols, 1 bow, 12 swords and a number of knives. Both rifles were gifts from my father when I  was young. Two handguns and the bow were inherited upon my father's death and several swords were gifts.

I, like many Americans, cherish the rights inherit within the Second Amendment, not only for protection against the potential "bump in the night" but also for sentimental reasons.

I also believe Americans should be participating in an adult conversation about the rights and responsibilities guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

With these facts as a backdrop it concerns me to read Rep. Jeff Duncan's comments during his self-proclaimed "Upstate Listening Tour Involving Support of the Second Amendment".

It would appear he is doing more talking than listening, which is disturbing as his thoughts illustrate a lack of appreciation for the context of American history.

He makes much by attempting to draw an analogy between the fact that those who wrote the Constitution placed no restrictions on gun ownership within the Second Amendment and unrestricted citizen rights today.

A cursory examination of history reveals that from the need of colonist fighting alongside British troops against the French and Indians, to Patriots from Concord and Lexington thru Yorktown, to militia being mustered into service, under President Washington during Shay's Rebellion or defeating the Creek Indians under Gen.Jackson, citizens-soldiers were subject to sudden mobilization and required to provide their own weapons in that era.

It is doubtful citizens will be called up today and required to bring their "assault weapons" to protect the local County Seat. The times and circumstances are simply not parallel which nullifies his central argument.

Further, as with a number of issues, our Founders had a limited concept of the advances that technology might provide. They didn't prohibit private ownership of biological weapons but wisely those have been banned, thus establishing one among a number of precedents for Federal supervision of public access to certain weapons.

Technological, medical, and social advancements have created situations where assuming to speak for the Founders without considering context could force one into a perilous position such as defending slavery or denying citizens the right to vote because of gender or wealth due to an overly strict interpretation of Constitutional intent. 

Our history provides many examples of later modifications to founding ideas, from basic liberty to marriage and voting equality, that reflect advancements designed to improve the quality of life.

Assault weapons, which appear to be Rep. Duncan's main concern, were designed for military and law enforcement purposes and as such serve no rational usage being distributed among the general populous.

Certain types of weapons should be reserved for use by professionals and Constitutional precedent allows for legislation to that end without infringing on citizen's Second Amendment rights.

As Congress begins debating legislation concerning gun laws citizens of South Carolina would be better served by less "show boating" and political posturing on the part of Rep. Duncan.

Instead of stoking emotional and groundless fears with fallacious arguments Rep. Duncan should assume a responsible role in crafting meaningful legislation that will help protect society while guaranteeing public access to the benefits of the Second Amendment.

That discussion must include prioritizing health care resources as well a consideration of cultural influences while reforming and updating gun laws. His constituents deserve no less when debating such a fundamental constitutional right.

John G. Painter
Seneca