Letter: Columnist’s gun comments lead to questions

January 22, 2013

Columnist’s gun comments lead to questions

I am confused in regards to Rose Nolen’s Jan. 18 commentary. I thought Amendment II (1791) of the Constitution of the United States of America states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

When did the Supreme Court “give them” the right to bear arms? Who is “them?” I thought under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution that the Supreme Court is to interpret our laws — did I miss something?

I wonder if Nolen believes that all gun owners are irresponsible. Did she talk to gun owners to get their views, or is she just repeating the standard liberal-bias news media talking points?

Michael Goodman

Transportation, Sedalia