Readers Write: The Second Amendment, ‘No Kings’ rallies, Israel-Hamas ceasefire

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As a lifelong Second Amendment advocate residing in the great state of Minnesota, I feel compelled to write in defense of a right that forms the bedrock of our freedoms, a right that too often is diluted in public discourse to mere hobbies or traditions. In Minnesota, where our vast landscapes and rural communities rely on self-reliance, the Second Amendment stands as an unyielding guardian against overreach, ensuring that citizens remain sovereign in the face of potential tyranny.

This is no peripheral privilege to be debated or compromised. The Second Amendment enshrines a God-given right, explicitly declaring that it “shall not be infringed.” These words are not suggestions; they are a constitutional firewall, nonnegotiable and impervious to bargaining. To portray it otherwise is to erode the very essence of American liberty. It is not about hunting deer in the North Woods or sporting clays on a crisp autumn day, vital pursuits though they may be. No, the Second Amendment is the ultimate safeguard: the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families and their republic against a tyrannical government that might seek to subjugate its own. In Minnesota, where history echoes with the spirit of pioneers who tamed the frontier through grit and resolve, this right reminds us that true security comes not from distant capitals but from empowered individuals ready to uphold justice.

Let us never forget that compromising on this foundation invites the shadows of despotism to lengthen. I urge your readers — and our lawmakers — to reaffirm this truth: The Second Amendment is the line in the sand that preserves all other rights.

As a reminder of its immutable power, I close with the full text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Dustin Guggenberger, St. Cloud

As talks of a special session have seemed to fade from the headlines, it feels a fitting time to remind all readers: An assault weapons ban is not unprecedented. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban lasted from 1994 to 2004, which, for a millennial like me, were the most formative years of my childhood. During that period when films like “Jingle All The Way” lit up the big screens, cellphones were becoming mainstream and kids like me funneled their allowances toward the latest PlayStation console, I’d like to ask: Was anyone less free?

I don’t claim to be a policy, gun or gun violence expert. I am the father of two young children, someone who now calls Minnesota home but who was raised in Texas. I grew up shooting guns. I’ve shot an AR-15, and I can tell you, the thrill of firing one is absolutely not worth the devastating consequences and helplessness we are feeling in our country. As our preschoolers do lockdown drills and parents scrutinize the sightlines through our kids’ classroom windows, it’s clearer than ever that this is not freedom.

Let’s follow the examples set by some of our fellow states that have put in place meaningful firearm and detachable magazine restrictions that save lives while maintaining respect for the Second Amendment. To the legislators who grew up in the same era as me, you should be willing to acknowledge that an assault weapons ban had a meaningful impact on your ability to grow up at all. To the baby boomer legislators in the Minnesota Legislature, I’m only asking you to grant the same protections for our children that yours were granted. Sidestepping and inaction are not only an abandonment of duty but an abdication of morality.

Trevor Webster, Minneapolis

•••

What struck me most was that, when asked to define what an “assault rifle” actually is, none of the speakers could give a clear or accurate answer. They also couldn’t explain the difference between a firearm that looks “scary” and one commonly used for hunting or sport — even though they often function in the exact same way.

If the people writing these laws can’t clearly define the terms they’re using, how can we expect the laws to make sense or be effective? Responsible gun owners, hunters and sports shooters deserve a voice in these conversations. Laws should be written by people who understand the subject matter — not by those who are guided primarily by fear or appearances.

We all want to prevent violence and protect our communities, but that goal won’t be reached by passing laws based on misinformation or emotion rather than knowledge and practical solutions.

Carrie Michels, Long Lake, Minn.

•••

What gets ignored is the role every one of us plays in stopping tragedies before they happen. We know that attackers display clear warning signs (changes in personality, threats or social withdrawal) long before violence occurs. It’s not just family or friends; the entire community has a responsibility to notice, speak up and step in.

When those signs appear, we can’t look away. If neighbors, co-workers, teachers and peers stay silent, we fail. More laws won’t fix apathy or fear of involvement.

The answer isn’t to punish responsible citizens; it’s to rebuild a culture where people care enough to act. Freedom demands courage, accountability and vigilance, not more government control.

Cory Birkemeyer, Plymouth

The Readers Write page continues to be a source of insight into how readers perceive the current state of our body politic. Predictably, letters against President Donald Trump dominate the page — witness the fact that all nine letters on Oct. 21 were about the “No Kings” rally (“The stakes couldn’t be higher. My family would know”).

The fact is that candidate Trump told the American electorate what he was going to do and now he is fulfilling his promises. Democrats will continue to struggle for traction as their party is dominated by those with the most radical agenda in their history. Democrats lost because what they were offering was rejected by voters. Rather than retool their messaging, they have doubled down with their rhetoric. That is OK, as the American voter will respond accordingly at the midterms.

The notion that we have a “king” is antithetical to the birth of our nation. An understanding of our history would reveal it was the motivation to separate from King George III. And in doing so, our founding fathers wrote the most ironclad documents to ensure there would be no kings — the Declaration of Independence followed by the U.S. Constitution.

Joe Polunc, Waconia

A Star Tribune headline on Oct. 20 read: “Israeli attacks shake ceasefire.”

The story below it describes the events: Hamas breaks the ceasefire, killing two Israeli soldiers; Israel punches back.