Columnist takes odd stance on guns

To the editor:

Walter Williams's July 6 column on the right to bear arms was an eye-opener ('Constitutional ignorance and dereliction”). Like the gun-grabbers, I had almost fallen for the gun lobby's line that this right is based on the necessities for hunting and self-defense. But Williams makes clear that it is based firmly upon the necessity that citizens be able to resist an oppressive government.

Are these correct implications of his opinion?

1. Every competent adult should be encouraged (perhaps even required) to own a gun and trained to use it. This is necessary in order to have a well-regulated militia.

2. No one, other than on-duty law-enforcement and called-up militia members, should be allowed to carry a gun. Presumably there would be some temporary exceptions, as for hunting.

3. All other guns should be locked away in the owners' homes at all times, not ready-to-hand for spontaneous use.

4. Guns should be allowed out of lockup only upon order of a designated public official or when, by vote of a locality, it is determined that a militia is needed to maintain public safety or to take arms against a tyrannical government.

In short, though citizens should own guns and know how to use them, it should be a crime to allow a gun out of lockup except at carefully specified times and places. I'm skeptical that Williams really is arguing for such rigid and strictly enforced gun control, but if he is, I think I could agree.

Terry Heller

Cedar Rapids