Editor:

In response to “Trump’s wrong: Hillary Clinton can’t confiscate guns” (Aug. 31), I agree this is a scare tactic by Trump, but one with real substance. Fact: a President Trump would be better for gun ownership than a President Hillary. Why waste your time with this article?

Addressing the points made…

First, using PolitiFact True/False ratings to make an argument for the left is like referencing Breitbart polls for the right. Additionally, it’s a poor question to reference to begin with … confiscating all guns would eliminate her security entourage. The better question is would Hillary be in favor of confiscating all firearms outside of military, police and a heavily regulated firearm list for hunting and home protection. I would expect her answer to be yes, but, then again, what difference does it make what her answer is — she can change it later.

Second, the Second Amendment hasn’t changed, but our Second Amendment rights have been changed by the U.S. Supreme Court. True, they are not capable of removing our right to bear arms entirely, but they do have the ability to shape the language of the Second Amendment to fit their political spectrum and adding guidance. Additionally, by simple inaction on their part, they allow state and local governments to make unconstitutional gun-restricting laws.
Third, this one proves my rebuttal to the second point — are we talking in circles here?

Fourth, this is a conversation that can go on for days. What happens when the government is no longer being run by the people, for the people? What happens when government officials are no longer being held accountable to the standards they push down? You mentioned treason — who is even prosecuting treason these days? Ed Snowden, by the way a traitor to our country, said it best: “Break classification rules for the public’s benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be president.”

Susan Lawman

Farmville