Gun rights come with serious responsibilities

State Sen. William G. Folden, a Frederick County Republican, posed an asinine question when he asked Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher, a Montgomery County Democrat, whether pending gun safety legislation would keep someone illegally armed from walking into a movie theater and sitting next to him and his family. Since the senator is a Frederick police officer, he knows the answer to his ludicrous, baiting question. Of course, it wouldn’t prevent someone from illegally being armed in a declared no-gun zone. In his case, he would probably be legally armed anyway as a sworn police officer, so his family is safer than others in the theater, assuming he can hit his target without collateral damage (“Maryland Senate hears testimony on bills to further regulate where guns can be carried, who can buy them,” Feb. 8).

The proposed law is no different from those outlawing acts like murder, rape, robbery or burglary. Such laws don’t “prevent’’ these crimes from being perpetrated — that’s the purpose of the punishment. So why have them at all? Senator Folden’s argument that some “wanna be a hero” and will be sufficiently trained to take action in a high-stress situation like a gunfight in a movie theater (or any other no-gun public area because police can’t be everywhere) begs credulity.

Then, by all means, allow people to be legally armed everywhere, but when the so-called constitutional right to be armed in self-defense results in the commission of crime — or collateral damage like hitting the 10-year-old child sitting behind the “bad guy” with the gun — make sure the punishment is severe enough for violating that “right” in both situations.

So when Senator Folden mouths a “right” to be legally armed for non-police officers in any and all areas of public life, I ask him what duties does this so-called right impose on me and others? It is a bit of a trope as there are no rights without responsibilities.