As usual, Marietta's Carol Lazear Mitchell was quick to take the left-wing, anti-firearms view suggesting 300 well-sheltered college presidents and a few others - current president included - should have the right to push policy in the direction that ignores the very roots of our country's strength - our Constitution. Those who push for stronger restrictions on gun control are suggesting the entire document be set aside because it does not suit their view of the world today.
I submit the founders of our country were brilliant in their anticipation of society's changing ways and capricious moves when they made it very difficult to alter the Constitution. It has only been done 27 times in 236 years, but there is a legal and specific procedure for doing so. As long as no amendment is approved using the specified process, the second of those 27 amendments must stand unshaken and unstirred just as it is. That amendment, as it stands and has stood for over two centuries is very specific as well. "Infringed" is described in present-day dictionary as coming from the Latin "infringere," which is to break or weakened. Therefore my simple question to those who would require additional encumbrances to the possession and carry of firearms is this:
What part of "... shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
If you want to require that a government official make the decision about who can and cannot defend themselves through the ownership of firearms, then change the Constitution. Yes, it is difficult, but having done it 27 times, it is not impossible. But doing so is the only legal manner in which any restriction on the ownership of firearms can pass Constitutional muster. The founders saw it as the best way to ensure the Constitution could be defended if the need arose.
By the way, our Sheriff, Ken Merritt, by signing the recently publicized petition, has done what most political office holders will not do: he has honored his oath of office. This is something for which he should be applauded, not condemned.