The Second Amendment is the guarantor of all our other rights

While I respect Katheryn Berg’s right to express her opinion on the gun and drug issues, (I’m a veteran and served my country to ensure her right to say whatever the hell she wants), I take issue with her tendency to present her opinions as facts. Heck, I even agree with her statement that “we live in a nation full of hypersensitive, self-absorbed narcissists.” Don’t forget the egomaniacs running the country these days and the spoiled brats being raised with no sense of responsibility for their actions and no self-discipline because they are being raised by parents who don’t discipline their children and teach them that there are consequences for their actions.

However, guns are NOT the problem, and if you truly understood the meaning of the Second Amendment and the intent of our Founding Fathers you would know how important it is to preserve that right. If we didn’t have the Second Amendment, there would be no guarantee we would still have the First Amendment that allows us to speak our minds in a public forum. The reason our system of government has worked so well for the past two centuries, ma’am, is because of the Second Amendment and many good men and women have died to guarantee that you continue to enjoy those rights, so please don’t belittle their sacrifice by saying those rights are no longer relevant.

The reason the Japanese didn’t land on our western shore in WWII is because they knew that most people in the Western states were armed. The reason we in Montana have such a low rate of home invasions is because people who would commit such a heinous act are basically cowards and know that in Montana they would likely be met with armed resistance.

And don’t think there aren’t people who would love to see the American people disarmed just so they could gain control. An armed people is a free people, a disarmed people are subjects. Just ask the 8 million Jews murdered during WWII or the brave men, women and children (yes, children!) who fought the oppressive monarchy for our independence. And no, these weren’t soldiers. They were just citizens. But they were armed, much to the chagrin of the British army.

You say that if we ever need to defend ourselves from an oppressive government that we’ll find a way, but at what cost? I would much prefer that we start out able to defend ourselves than have to scramble to find makeshift weapons to fight a well-equipped army! Think the army would be on your side? Think again. Our military forces are trained to follow orders. (Don’t forget, I’m a veteran.)

There have always been bad people and, unfortunately, there always will be. Disarming good people is not going to change that. “Responsible “ gun owners know what can happen when guns end up in the wrong hands and take all reasonable steps to ensure that doesn’t happen. There are, however, people who claim to be responsible, but are careless just as there are many who believe they are good drivers but are, in fact, terrible drivers (but don’t get me started on that).

No, these “demented individuals” couldn’t have shot the people they did without guns, but some of those guns were stolen after killing the guns’ owners by other means. Others who didn’t have guns used other methods (knives, bombs...). (And, I’m pretty sure, if and when they feel they need to murder innocents ... they’ll find a way.)

As for your statements regarding pharmaceuticals, ma’am, I agree some are a problem; however they can be very beneficial also. The problem has the same roots as the murder (by any means) problem in our society. The objects (guns, drugs...) are by their very nature, neither good nor bad. It depends on whose hands they are in. That being said, yes, the big corporations are a bunch of greedy bastards, as they all are, but the only ads I have seen on TV lately are for ED drugs, allergy meds, antidepressants and some NSAIDs. I don’t think we can link those to a lot of violent crime. As for other countries not allowing such ads, I have no personal knowledge of that and question your sources.

So no, I “don’t need 50 guns,” Ms Berg. But I prefer that to be my choice. I DO hunt with semi-automatic guns, even my AR-15 (they are available in a wide range of calibers, suitable for hunting, and they are accurate and dependable.) I DO prefer a semi-automatic gun for personal/home protection. I also enjoy plinking and target shooting with semi-automatics. So you see, they are not just for murdering people. In fact, if you will recall, the guy who shot up the church in Texas was stopped by a citizen with an AR-15 and many (many!) violent crimes have been stopped by responsibly armed citizens. But you don’t know about those because the biased media doesn’t sensationalize them.

Wiley is a resident of Kalispell.