I was appalled at how poorly written the article â€Guns, Freedom and More Gunsâ€ was. Mr. Bowmanâ€™s grammar and sentence structure were clumsy and confusing, and the article is riddled with factual errors and flawed logic.
The first ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791, not 1751. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not meant to be â€œsocial norms,â€ they are meant to protect our freedoms. Everything in these documents is what defines us as a nation and sets us apart. Throwing even one Amendment out because Bowman feels it is an â€œantediluvian notionâ€ would not only rob us of our freedom to protect ourselves and our families but would also set a precedent that could be used to strip us of other freedoms.
The claim that the Second Amendment is â€œfar more detrimental to society than beneficialâ€ is totally unsubstantiated. A claim like this one should be followed by solid evidence. Instead, Bowman points fingers and starts name-calling.
As a wildlife biology major, I was particularly offended by Mr. Bowmanâ€™s jab at hunters. According to the USFWS (and all Wildlife Management textbooks), â€œHunting gives resource managers a valuable tool to control populationsâ€¦â€Guns are the most logical, most effective tools for hunting. Name-calling still doesnâ€™t win arguments, Mr. Bowman.
Finally, I think Benjamin Franklin already did an excellent job of addressing Bowmanâ€™s idea of the â€œsafest choice:â€ â€œThose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.â€
Nikki Crider is a junior wildlife biology major.