I am writing in response to your editorial on July 17, about West Burlington's ordinance that bans firearms on municipal property and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits the government restriction on a citizen's individual right to keep and bear arms. I would like to point out a few inconsistencies in your arguments.

You seemed to defend gun restrictions on the basis that even though not all gun owners are "nut jobs" (generous of you to acknowledge that, thank you, sir), that some are.

While I cannot argue with the fact that "nut jobs" are present in any large group, I find the continuation of that argument, that it is therefore justifiable to punish the whole group, rather weak. Perhaps I could make the argument that because some newspaper editors are "nut jobs" (present company excluded, of course, sir), that all editorials should automatically be banned from print. After all, if we could stop just one "nut job" editor from spewing misinformation and half truths upon the delicate sensibilities of impressionable people who may be led astray, wouldn't it be worth it?

Of course not, because to violate the First Amendment rights of all to silence a few crazies would be dangerous and just plain wrong.

On a more serious note, you used the horrible 1986 murder of Mount Pleasant Mayor Edd King to defend a ban on firearms in municipal buildings. This argument is unfortunately common because it seems reasonable on its face, but should be disturbing to any thinking person who bothers to take a closer look. It implies that it is within any government's ability to protect citizens from harm perpetrated by criminals simply by declaring more things as crimes.

Does any reasonable person sincerely believe that an evil individual bent on committing the heinous act of murder would be stopped in his tracks at the door of City Hall as long as it bears a sign proclaiming, "Firearms Prohibited on Premises"?

Would Ralph Davis, who thought nothing of committing the most serious of felonies, shrink at the thought of violating a minor city ordinance? Really?

The unfortunate fact is, no law can protect people from those who are by definition "law breakers," but I can certainly cite cases where the possession of a firearm by a trained and responsible citizen did in fact provide that very protection.

The Supreme Court was right, sir; any local law that infringes on rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment is wrong.

KIMBERLY ENGLE

Fort Madison