Rights not infringed, but boundaries set
I concur with Robert Nekervis’ comments on the importance of determining not whether, but how the right to bear arms in the United States should be legislated. I feel that the position (held by many gun lobbyists) that the right to bear arms should be immune to legislation, overlooks the fact that virtually all rights carry some limitation. Every right we are accorded under the Constitution – civil or otherwise – is not without some restriction. For example, I have the right to vote, BUT I must first be 18 years old. I have the right to speak freely, BUT I cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. I have the right to run for president, BUT I must be at least 35 and born in the United States. These restrictions don’t mean my right is infringed; rather, they delineate the circumstances under which my right freely applies. Why should the right to bear arms not be subject to this type of reasoning?
Ric MorrisDoctoral candidateSpanish linguistics
