The following is a letter in response to one published Feb. 7, 2013.
Mr. Jones,
Thank you for your collegial and spirited response to my last letter. However, I disagree with your statement that the second amendment says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, in fact, that is exactly what is says. I do not dispute the right to gun ownership. The question that I have concerns who should get guns and what types should be available. High capacity military style weapons should be reserved for law enforcement and military personnel and we must ensure that no guns fall in to the wrong hands. The only way to do that is by having extensive back round checks that ensure that mentally ill people and criminals cannot obtain guns and harm others. The rights of innocent victims are more important than rights of people like James Holmes to own guns.
The founding fathers probably would not have wanted innocent Americans to be mowed down by lunatics carrying semi automatic weapons while watching movies or attending school and they probably could not envision that the second amendment would perpetuate the legal availability of certain types of guns which have become a facilitator of this senseless violence. We need to ensure that the applications of constitution are balanced in a manner that maintains our freedoms while also protecting our citizens.
Sir, your arguments center around the preservation of basic American freedoms. I would say this about gun control, however; the NRA does not represent the majority of Americans but it somehow manages to impose a minority view by wielding disproportionate power. To me this is a greater risk to our freedoms, as the majority view is squelched by a loud and powerful, well-organized special interest. Let’s limit gun ownership to sane people and to weapons that are used to hunt, target shoot and for self protection within certain legal limits that are logical in today’s world, that is all I am saying.
Matt Borenzweig