To the editor:
After reading Fred Causley’s column of Nov. 20, there are a couple points I’d like to make. The Second Amendment, like any written document, is open to interpretation, but in this case it seems to have been carried a bit far. Here’s the entire text of the Second Amendment, “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.” In Causley’s letter, he says the Second Amendment, “. . . gives us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves our loved ones and our property.” Where, exactly, does it say that?
I assume Causley is guided by the 2008 Supreme Court decision that somehow the Second Amendment affirms the right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense (some mental gymnastics there, it seems to me). But the very conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in that decision added, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
I have no objection to a person having a weapon in the home for protection, IF that person has had proper training in gun safety, which is no longer required in our state. Now it seems anyone in Oklahoma can carry a weapon, concealed or open, with no training at all. I, like Scalia, who I disagree with on many things, firmly agree that we should not have the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”