I am writing to bring further attention to the premise put forth by Jim Chiddix in his Letter to the Editor published on Feb. 15.

Chiddix gave his analysis of why certain people and organizations, including the U.S. Supreme Court, are in error regarding their interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution.

Chiddix referred to them as ignorant. The Supreme Court justices are not ignorant of the Constitution or the many learned decisions it has issued regarding the Second Amendment.

Chiddix says, “The only logical and positive way to assure reduced gun-related violence in our society is not to limit gun ownership but instead require the registration of all guns and licensing of all owners.”

I agree that limiting gun ownership is not the solution, considering it is estimated there are currently more than 300,000,000 privately owned guns in this country. That number has risen, perhaps substantially, since President Barack Obama and others have indicated that they would like to further limit gun ownership. The store shelves are pretty well empty of ammunition too.

I fail to comprehend, perhaps because I too am ignorant, how registering guns and licensing gun owners will reduce violence. Will a licensed owner not use the weapon because it is registered? Will criminals stop stealing or acquiring guns by other illegal means to use in criminal activities because all gun owners are required to acquire a license?

Are registration and licensure the first steps toward confiscation? The only real value to registration and licensure is to leave a trail of bread crumbs for the police to follow back to the source of the gun after it is used in a crime. So how does that reduce violence? It is not a deterrent to crime.

Anne P. Schaad

Fayette

Copy the Story Link