- Visit the Photo Place

Why is a teacher displaying such blatant anti-gun bias?

Follow us on

Mark Bunner

Date published: 12/26/2005

To anyone reading Katherine Letellier's letter, which takes issue with the Second Amendment coverage and her perceived lack of balance, it should be quite clear that her issue was not balance or education ["Second Amendment commentary shot balance in the foot," Dec. 16].

Ms. Letellier's issue is that her anti-gun bias wasn't supported and her agenda wasn't furthered.

There is no evidence to support the assertion that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to create a collective right or government power. It simply doesn't exist.

For Ms. Letellier to assert otherwise is tantamount to claiming that history shows that the king traded away the future United States to the Indians for some beads because they held no value.

Her assertion that balance (or the appearance thereof) is more important than content is ludicrous.

I find it amazing that someone who claims to be a government teacher would think it important to "present the diverse interpretations of this controversial amendment" as if all interpretations were equally valid.

Her faulty position would have teachers presenting invalid and faulty "interpretations" as if they were credible and informed.

The science of buoyancy would be presented with the "interpretation" that magic turtles hold up boats.

The science of reproduction would be presented side by side with the "interpretation" that it's the stork that brings babies.

The history of World War II would be presented with the "interpretation" that the concentration camps were resort spas and the Holocaust never happened.

Fact is what is important, not the appearance of balance. The fact remains that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Any government teacher should know that and would if she didn't let her emotional bias get in the way.

Weirton, W.Va.

Date published: 12/26/2005