Editorial misses mark on Second Amendment

To the editor:

In Thursday’s Sentinel editorial I read what I consider an illogical support for gun control. Yes, gun control no different than that which the anti-gun radicals have been pushing for years. It seems to favor the attempt to limit gun rights one step at a time until there are no rights left and the Second Amendment is eliminated from our constitution.

The argument put forth by the editor is to stand in opposition to the Arkansas House of Representatives Committee’s advancement of a bill that would allow concealed carry permit holders to carry their weapons into public arenas such as stadiums. The Sentinel may claim to be strongly in favor of the Second Amendment but their argument is in concert with anti-gun advocates who are opposed to any legal carry.

Let me make an opposite argument: The legal permit holder that this bill addresses has been vetted by their state and/or the sheriffs of their counties. They have been found not to be felon or a person suffering from a serious mental disability. The same cannot be said of those who would enter a stadium with a weapon intent upon doing harm. Of course they would not have applied for a concealed carry permit knowing full well they would be denied. So who would stop them from entering a stadium — a posted sign stating ‘guns not allowed’?

On the other hand the CCP holder would be denied entry simply because if he/she enters a posted prohibited area they would probably lose their permit. The person with intent to do harm would suffer no such restriction. So the legal carry person would be prohibited but the criminal would be allowed easy access. Seems another facet of criminal rights in opposition to the rights of the law abiding citizen.

The Sentinel mixes and matches alcohol with guns and includes even the responsible permit holder in their hypothetical. Seems that is but another of the left’s argument on a long list of misguided suppositions. Permit holders would be a deterrent in the face of aggressive acts by a criminal actor intent upon doing harm to the permit holder and perhaps even others nearby being threatened. They, unlike the criminal mindset, carry for self protection, not to threaten or do harm to others.

What The Sentinel seems to be saying is that we cannot prevent a criminal from carrying a gun into a stadium so let us deny a concealed carry permit holder entry into that same stadium. That is an illogical argument and one that follows the left wing’s erroneous tome of reasoning in an attempt to deny us our rights in the name of a false safety argument.

Diane L. Logan