To the editor:

Phillip Ridenour needs to return to Kansas University’s School of Law for a refresher course in constitutional law (Public Forum, Oct. 8). One cannot merely defend (or hide behind) the portions of the U.S. Constitution that one agrees with. The same Bill of Rights protecting Ridenour’s right to own firearms in the Second Amendment defends Professor Guth’s right to say what he thinks in the First, regardless of how clumsily and stupidly stated it might be.

That same First Amendment allows the NRA to make all sorts of exaggerated and sometimes spurious claims and accusations about existing gun laws and pending firearms legislation.

Guth is no doubt a hothead, but there is no law against that. I totally disagree with what Guth said and how he said it, but I defend his right to say it. That’s how this is supposed to work.

One would think a lawyer could figure that out.