In response to Ms. Ortiz’s article on Sept. 15, some key points should be corrected. The ban that she mentions actually has nothing to do with safety.

Ms. Ortiz asks, “Why would U.S. citizens need weapons that hold more than 10 rounds for self-defense?” The question should be: Why can’t a law abiding citizen own what he or she wants.

If it came to protection of my family or myself I would want as many rounds as possible. If I were to extend Ms. Ortiz’s line of thinking to cars, then it would be reasonable to say that all cars should have a maximum speed of 65 mph.

Ms. Ortiz then mentions the Second Amendment. As with most anti-gun activists, she changes it from the way it was written to something that it wasn’t intended to say.

After all, that is the maximum speed limit here in Iowa; there is no reason to go faster. Or perhaps we should even ban all cars, since they do cause more deaths than guns every year. The facts are that guns, cars or any other inanimate object can’t kill on its own; it needs someone there to make it a weapon or a tool.

Ms. Ortiz claims it only has to do with state security. She and others have attacked the word militia. Let’s start at the beginning and use the definitions of the era. Back when the Bill of Rights was written, the militia was any able bodied male capable of firing a gun. That meant everyone.

If you can do away with one of the freedoms on the Bill of Rights, then others are sure to follow. I say we strive to keep them all strong for future generations.

Though you may not like my guns, I may not like your opinion. But the beauty of our country is that we have the right to own guns and say what we wish.

Ben Howe

Senior

Biology