This is in reference to Dave Engleman's letter in the Aug. 30 issue of the Payson Roundup.
Mr. Kuenzli was not shot for "playing" with his dogs in the forest; he was shot for threatening the life of Mr. Fish, who was acting in self-defense, a right granted by Arizona statutes, among others.
Secondly, this "shaky claim" of possessing a gun to which you refer is the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I would hardly call this "shaky." This amendment came about from the people wanting a means to resist a repressive government, and had nothing whatsoever to do with "savages."
Lastly, the violent death of any person is tragic; however, if you review the records, your Mr. Kuenzli was not the benevolent saint you attempt to make him out to be.
I suggest you research facts before you state your opinion to the detriment of Fish and the U.S. Constitution.