Gun debate just isn't sensible

I have hesitated giving my opinion to the press for the usual criticism that follows any ones opinion; however, it is plain to me that the 2nd Amendment seems to be the sticking point on sensible gun rights.

When the 2nd Amendment was included in the constitution, I think it was the concern of those who wrote it for citizens have the ability to hunt for game for their own use. It probably was realized at the time, what harm could occur from people being armed, especially since the arms at the time were muzzle loading guns or single action pistols.

We now live at a time where guns are made that are able to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute. I cannot imagine a hunter of game needing such a weapon nor can I imagine a need for large caliber rapid fire hand guns. We should be able to depend on our law enforcement agencies to provide us with protection from those who would do us harm. If not, do all of us have to become killers to protect our homes or property?

We do have the right to a quiet existence without feeling the need for the NRA,s protection.

This story was originally published June 23, 2016 at 9:31 AM with the headline "Gun debate just isn't sensible."