Second Amendment does not mean no gun regulation
To the editor:
The author of a letter (Jan. 12-13)invites us to imagine him armed with a Bushmaster up in the hills holding off the U.S. Army. Good luck with that. This fantasy would be laughable were it not for his seditious interpretation of the Second Amendment being responsible for so much death. The Constitution uses the phrase “well regulated,” words that are a far cry from the current truth.
If this writer wants to rely on a citizens’ armory, then he should set up a keep, where a corps of responsible citizens will sign out weapons to trained individuals for exercises. Perhaps the town libraries would offer space and expertise for this. But such a well-regulated militia bears no relation to today’s guns-in-every-room-for-everybody free-for-all.
Think regulation won’t work? Consider this: When the Israeli army (that bastion of liberalism) forbade soldiers on leave from taking guns home, the suicide rate was cut in half. The regulation did not stop every suicide, but it did stop half of them. The writer is welcome to his fantasy of having a shootout at the O.K. Corral, but I refuse to let this fantasy prevent me from supporting meaningful regulation, supporting laws that fulfill the premise of the Second Amendment, laws that will save thousands of lives.