Rights cannot have ‘reasonable restrictions’

I am totally confused.

State Rep. Mike McLachan was quoted in The Pagosa Springs Sun as saying Supreme Court Justice Scalia had said that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could have reasonable restrictions. Who defines reasonable restrictions?

How could that be?

If true, it means that it is not a right, but instead a grant of favors that could be withdrawn at any time. Which means that all I have learned about the government of the United States and its laws during the last nearly 70 years is a lie. We are not a free people with the ability to have rights of free speech, religion, property rights, and the ability to defend our family and country.

All animals are blessed by God with the ability to defend their family, property and lives. Yet our government in its infinite wisdom is denying the people of this union the ability to defend ourselves and our country by denying us the best weapons available.

What has happened to our God-given rights? The Bill of Rights merely affirms those rights. It does not grant them.

I would dearly love for members of the Colorado Legislature and U.S. Congress to explain to me without a bunch of legaleze how the supreme law of the land can be set aside so easily. I would also like to know how the genocides such as happened in Germany, Russia, Turkey, China and other countries will not happen here. Relying on the good will of future rulers is not acceptable.

Russell Crowley

Pagosa Springs