Perhaps Charles Schulz is on to something (BDN, Dec. 30). I assume we are to understand that Schulz feels there should be some sort of parallel between individual rights and recognized by the government in the Bill of Rights, and privileges regulated by the government. Schulz draws attention to the fact that one is required to possess a license to drive an automobile, own a dog, or fish, while firearm ownership, by contrast, has no such requirement.
Ignoring the fact that California, where Schulz resides, is one of the most restrictive states when it comes to upholding the right of the people to own firearms, are we as citizens willing to relegate human rights to the same stature as privileges? If so, I propose we approach this matter in the logical order of first things first, since the First Amendment to the Constitution refers in part to the right of the people to exchange ideas through the free exercise of speech and the press, the media — cartoonists included. After all, it is widely recognized that the communication of ideas by sentient beings is potentially more powerful than brute force.
So how about it, Chuck — you first. Andrew Rudzinski East Corinth