Editor: I read with interest the letter written by Kris Consaul and Sheryl Frye regarding the Lovettsville Town Council’s resolution to support the Bill of Right recognized to all U.S. citizens, and specifically the right to keep and bear arms. Their line of thinking was compelling, except they drew exactly the opposite conclusion that their premises should have led them to.
They wrote, “Many of us who opposed the proclamation decidedthat the risk of speaking at the meeting was too high; [a] power imbalance would be holstered on the hip of one side of the ‘discussion.’ Civic discourse can’t happen at the end of a gun.”
This is precisely why the founding fathers made the provision that everyone be armed. If only government agents have guns all discussion, dissent, and peaceful protest is over.
Civic discourse can’t happenwhen there is a power imbalance at the end of gun.
In this, they made an irrefutablepoint, but then drew the wrong conclusion from it: “Be careful not to use the Second Amendment to suppress the First.” It is impossible to use the Second Amendment to suppress the First. They, like everyone else, are free to be armed. Rather, the Second Amendment guarantees the First, because “civic discourse can’t happen at the end of a gun,” a fact that every disarmed society can attest to.
George C. Hammond, Round Hill