The recent column, “Second Amendment could handle a little interpretation” by Matthew Greenley shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues and organizations involved in the firearm control debate in this country.

The first sentence accuses the NRA membership of resisting firearm safety. The NRA membership has always been for firearm safety. Safety was a founding principle and continues to be the key principle today.

What you won’t read about in the media is that NRA membership spends much more time and money on firearm safety activities than all other firearm related organizations combined — Handgun Control Inc. included.

Of course, if you consider confiscation the only form of firearm safety, then you remove yourself from the debate about firearms control.

The article also displays an appalling lack of understanding about our Constitution. The Constitution will never tell us when or how to do anything, much less when we can bear arms.

We remain (sort of) a free people because our Constitution tells the government what it cannot do rather than what the people are allowed to do.

Also, the Second Amendment isn’t under consideration. It was adopted as an inviolate right along with the other nine in our Bill of Rights.

The federal controlled militia argument doesn’t fly far either. The Constitution provides for the protection from foreign powers in Article I, section eight.

The militia referred to in the Second Amendment wasn’t to protect the federal government then being formed. Militias were not about protecting governments, they were to protect people.

The militia members that turned out to prevent their government from confiscating their arms at Concord weren’t ordered out by King George.

Yes, like the First Amendment, the government does regulate manner, time and place for the possession of firearms to protect the people, and no one wants criminals, the deranged and children to have access to firearms.

What the Second Amendment protects the people from is government regulation becoming infringement.

Finally, I agree that the firearm control debate in our country needs a great deal of discussion rather than emotional/political rhetoric, but don’t expect it to come from the Supreme Court or any political candidate.

It needs to come from thoughtful, informed citizens on both sides of the issue.

Lee Van Brocklin

Student service specialist

Family and Consumer Science

Adviser

ISU trap and skeet club