I feel compelled to respond to Mr. Bill Clark’s article in your paper the morning of Jan. 13 (“A response to conspirators in the wake of Sandy Hook). I would like to make some observations:
1. Firstly, Mr. Clark, the use of “clips” is improper terminology. By definition, a clip is a device used in loading a magazine. A magazine has its own spring and follower.
2. The killer at Sandy Hook was not “subdued.” He committed suicide; a true coward.
3. Neither the Constitution of this great nation, particularly the Second Amendment, nor the Constitution of this great state of Montana — Article II, Section 12, with particularity — make any reference to “hunting.” Perhaps you should read those and come to a full understanding of your rights. These sections refer to the “Right of the People” to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invasion threat from a foreign power. Where is hunting mentioned there?
4. Our rights are inalienable. Do you know what that means?
5. Acting as the devil’s advocate, why do you need all of those guns? Wow, 25 guns.
Are you planning something your government should be concerned about? You denigrate the National Rifle Association. I portend that the only reason you have your 25 guns today is because the NRA protects your rights.
Lastly, the massacre at Sandy Hook is beyond understanding. “Horrific” doesn’t come close to synopsis of its magnitude. Explain to me why the “gun violence” murder rate among minority “gangbangers” goes unaddressed? I would venture to say that few, if none, of the firearms used are legally purchased. The answer to this is that taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens is much easier than dealing with criminals.
Just some thoughts, Mr. Clark. Also, did you think about the possible ramifications of revealing the number of firearms in your home to possible thieves and home intruders? I would hope that people would understand that punishing law-abiding U.S. citizens has absolutely no effect on crime.
1825 Carolina Ave.