Complex issue deserves thought
The front page story on Sunday, April 27, in the Rutland Herald (Vt. shooting incident revives mental illness debate,” by staff writer Brent Curtis) is brilliant reporting on a critical issue — exploring the complexity of a complicated subject.
But does the defensive position of Capt. Donald Patch, Vermont State Police, who is understandably supporting his troopers, avoid answering the question that something went terribly wrong by saying, “I can’t speculate that a law would prevent someone from carrying a gun”?
What about asking a serious, rational question, or does one throw up his arms like an old law professor and proclaim that “there is not a law for every wrong.”
I’m not quite sure what the position of Barre Police Chief Tim Bombardier is when he says, “The state needs to pass legislation like the one supported be [Senator] Sears to close loopholes in the federal law.” Apparently, this means that Vermont should set up its own registry because the feds are going to do nothing.
This points out the nationwide insanity, which afflicts many, not a few, on guns.
Let’s have the history buffs enlighten us on the reason the British were marching on Bennington, what kinds of guns the early settlers owned and how many.
Certainly a strict constructionist like Mr. Justice Scalia would agree that the manufacture and sale of ammunition can be regulated, for nowhere in the Constitution does the word “ammunition” appear.
Absolutism has no place in the Constitution. Descartes proclaimed that we are thinking beings. Was he right?
WILLIAM D. ANDERSON