Sections

Constitution grants right to bear arms

TO THE DAILY:

I find it extremely repulsive that the Daily has the gall to cry foul about the disappearing papers on the front page, while at the same time supporting laws that are contrary to the Second Amendment. You claim the unusual demand for papers March 27 was "an act of censorship" and a violation of the Daily's constitutional rights.

Maybe the Daily's editors only read the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Second Amendment says, "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 upon."

Regardless how you may try to interpret this amendment, it is undeniable that the assault weapons ban infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If, as the Daily says, "the American people still want the ban," ("Assaulting the ban: U.S. Senate must not repeal gun law," 3/28/96) then the American people should amend the Constitution. Enacting and supporting unconstitutional laws for political correctness is poor leadership.

Every time Congress tries to pass a law to prevent the publication of dangerous material, such as those used in the making of the Oklahoma bomb style devises, the press screams about the First Amendment. Now Congress tries to repeal an unconstitutional law and the Daily forgets the Constitution.

The Daily's editors are correct when they say an AK47 or Uzi is meant to kill people. Whether you like it or not, the Second Amendment is about killing people. It does not say you have a right to bear arms for the the purpose of goose hunting. If Americans want to limit or end the right to bear arms in the United States, the Constitution should be amended, not violated.

The editorial makes it clear that it values the Constitution when it is to its advantage to do so!

CARLOS E. HERNANDEZ

LSA SENIOR