Amendment exists to stop enemy within

I worked hard to understand what Gary Nichols was trying to say in his letter on Feb. 1 (Big difference between ban and control), but I confess I couldn't. He seems to be saying we should control some aspects of gun sales and use – but of course we already do. Two long standing examples among many are restrictions on ownership of fully automatic guns (e.g. assault rifles) and bans on ownership of any kind of gun by convicted felons. So what was behind Mr. Nichols' fuzzy logic and his irrational fear of the undefinable “assault weapon?“

I think Mr. Nichols simply does not understand why the states ratified the amendments to our Constitution, one of which guarantees that our right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

Our founding fathers did not worry about a future generation's right to have guns for hunting or even repelling foreign invaders. They wanted us to have guns necessary to repel the enemy within – a tyrannical government that is a threat to “the security of a free State.”

So for me, my right to bears arms can be summed up like this: “I insist that I be allowed to own a gun that can shoot as far and as fast and as often as those guns I am forced to buy for my government!” If I can also hunt, play with, or defend my home with that same gun then I will be further blessed. And I want to own several of these guns right now. Today!

Ken Hilderbrand
Yuma