The Nugget Newspaper - News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon

Mr. Protas, you are wrong on every point you raised in your opinion piece (The Nugget, January 9, page 2).

However, it is your First Amendment right to have your views published. This constitutional right was made number one for a reason and correspondingly the Second Amendment was made number two in the bill of rights for good reason.

You are correct that the context of the period in time and history relative to the Second Amendment is key. For the founders had just fought a revolution to cast off a tyrannical government. In the new constitution the founders intended to enshrine the very tools that made the revolution possible: the armed population and the ability to freely publish the calls to arms and the supporting intellectual arguments. Your argument about the founders not envisioning missiles and B-52s is a false argument, because individuals can not possess those weapons, nor is anyone calling for that.

Ben Franklin, one of the intellectual giants of the time, and James Madison, father of the constitution, both wrote extensively that the ability of a new country to remain free rested on the INDIVIDUAL's right to bear arms. George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment, wrote: "What is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best most effectual way to enslave them." The founders intended for the citizen to defend the state and be able to defend themselves from the state, should it become tyrannical. The founders' concern about a standing federal army was based on their fear of a central government becoming too powerful.

The constitution and the Federalist Papers are full of insights and arguments about the dangers of an overreaching central government. The federal government was set up to be subservient to the people. Just because there has been a modern trend to stray away from these constitutional restraints on government does not make it permanent, sustainable or right.

The Second Amendment is not about the right to hunt or sport-shoot, it's about the right and duty to defend oneself, family and community from threats foreign and domestic. The media does not recount the thousands of times a year that people use a gun to defend themselves. Ask a police officer about their ability to respond in time to prevent a crime.

Horrific events like Sandy Hook have always occurred throughout history, but are statistically down per capita. Once one gets past the emotional reactions to an event like Sandy Hook and logically examine the facts and statistics, one comes to the conclusion that there is wisdom in the Second Amendment. John Lott, a statistician and economist, studied the issue and found crime dropped significantly in cities where concealed-carry permits were introduced and/or gun ownership was prevalent. In cities with the heaviest gun regulation or bans, violence is highest - period. It is undisputable. Chicago and D.C. are the "poster-child" cities that illustrate this.

Ask the citizens in South Central L.A. during the Rodney King riots or the people after Katrina about the importance of a proper rifle or pistol to defend person, property and livelihood.

The vast majority of annual gun deaths are gang-bangers or other criminals, so how is the rational solution to disarm the law-abiding citizen? The ACLU and other organizations have made it difficult to institutionalize the mentally unstable and keep career criminals in prison. These are the two places to look to reduce gun violence. We, as a society, need to keep any and all weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, without infringing on the public's right to bear arms.

Eric Knirk is a resident of Sisters.