Sometimes I think that the only reason The Daily Item prints those opinion pieces by Susan Stamper Brown ("Sandy Hook and the 2nd Amendment") is to ruffle our feathers and remind us that we live in a world with people whose heads are oddly screwed on.
Brown fashions herself as a "military advocate" and seems to think that an appropriate way to address violence at our schools is to install armed guards. But, is that the kind of society we want to foster and in which we want to live? It seems to me that even our military keeps its rifles and munitions locked up at designated locations when they are not in use, and someone must sign the items out when they are needed. (That provides a system of dual-control -- one person assuming responsibility for allowing release of the weapon, and another assuming responsibility for its authorized use).
The Second Amendment speaks of the right to "keep and bear" arms in the context of the necessity for a well-regulated militia. It says nothing about where those arms should be kept. Using the military as a model, would it not be reasonable for us to establish civilian-controlled armories, where gun owners can keep their weapons under lock when not in use, self-policing their release and use? Why must we put our children under armed guards rather than the instruments that even Brown would admit are dangerous?
Anthony B. Ludovico,