Preserve what in the Constitution?

March 28, 2013 

I like the idea expressed in "Resolving assault rifle debate" (March 19, Letters). I will be the first to volunteer for this well-regulated militia. With that established, we should not limit our militia to small arms. Members should have access to heavy machine guns, ordnance and armor as well. I can't think of better neighborhood protection than a tank parked in my driveway. Oh sure, the mileage is terrible, but when the police refuse to enter my community during a full-scale riot, like they did in Los Angeles 20 years ago, nobody on my street will burn. Sign me up!

Actually, this letter illustrates the problem, not the solution. I wonder what part of the Constitution the writer insists must be preserved. His letter treats those who hold the Second Amendment in high esteem as cowardly, petulant children. If he insists I give up my rights under the Second Amendment, I insist he give up his rights under the First. My solution: Follow the Constitution. Propose a 28th Amendment rescinding the Second. I submit it would be a losing argument. Until we change or repeal the Second Amendment, why don't we just adhere to the Constitution of the United States?

MARK A. EVANS

Modesto

Modesto Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service