LETTER: Gun laws should be strong, well enforced

Feb. 21, 2013 @ 05:00 AM

To the Editor:

Why is it that whenever somebody writes against any gun control measures (Jonathan Gonia, Feb. 16), they always quote the Second Amendment and then completely ignore the militia clause?

Militias were state organizations, not civilian. Until 2008, SCOTUS considered that the militia clause trumped the individual rights cause. That was when the right-wing activist Supreme Court overturned more than 100 years of precedents.

With the latest mass shooting in Connecticut, we are again talking about gun control. Gun advocates in the guise of the NRA seem to be against any new laws or expansion of older laws (the assault weapons ban having been let to lapse). Nothing that President Obama has suggested doing would keep any law-abiding citizen from obtaining a firearm. The NRA is now even against background checks.

There should be a full, extensive, background check of anyone purchasing a firearm. Expanding background checks is no more than an attempt to keep people from illegally obtaining weapons. The existing background check has kept well over a million criminals from doing so, but it isn't nearly enough — since they can then go to any gun show and buy a weapon without any background check.

The current argument against an assault weapons ban is defining just what an assault weapon is. Instead of listing banned weapons, it should list allowable weapons. Nobody needs a 10-or-more round clip to go hunting deer.

I'm half blind and would need a left-handed weapon. Using an old M-1 from my ROTC days, I could probably take down a deer with its six-round clip. And, no, I was not a marksman. I haven't fired a rifle since then. 

I do not think the president went far enough. Before obtaining a weapon, you should be required to obtain a license. You should not be allowed to sell weapons at a gun show to anyone without a license. All this would mean is a few days delay in someone getting a firearm. That's mot very much of an inconvenience at all if it saves even one innocent life.

I agree that the existing laws must have better enforcement, but that can only be accomplished if we have strong gun laws and actually enforce them, such as prosecuting firearms dealers that sell without background checks.

Neil Rotter

Sanford

To the Editor:

Why is it that whenever somebody writes against any gun control measures (Jonathan Gonia, Feb. 16), they always quote the Second Amendment and then completely ignore the militia clause?

Militias were state organizations, not civilian. Until 2008, SCOTUS considered that the militia clause trumped the individual rights cause. That was when the right-wing activist Supreme Court overturned more than 100 years of precedents.

With the latest mass shooting in Connecticut, we are again talking about gun control. Gun advocates in the guise of the NRA seem to be against any new laws or expansion of older laws (the assault weapons ban having been let to lapse). Nothing that President Obama has suggested doing would keep any law-abiding citizen from obtaining a firearm. The NRA is now even against background checks.

There should be a full, extensive, background check of anyone purchasing a firearm. Expanding background checks is no more than an attempt to keep people from illegally obtaining weapons. The existing background check has kept well over a million criminals from doing so, but it isn't nearly enough — since they can then go to any gun show and buy a weapon without any background check.

The current argument against an assault weapons ban is defining just what an assault weapon is. Instead of listing banned weapons, it should list allowable weapons. Nobody needs a 10-or-more round clip to go hunting deer.

I'm half blind and would need a left-handed weapon. Using an old M-1 from my ROTC days, I could probably take down a deer with its six-round clip. And, no, I was not a marksman. I haven't fired a rifle since then.

I do not think the president went far enough. Before obtaining a weapon, you should be required to obtain a license. You should not be allowed to sell weapons at a gun show to anyone without a license. All this would mean is a few days delay in someone getting a firearm. That's mot very much of an inconvenience at all if it saves even one innocent life.

I agree that the existing laws must have better enforcement, but that can only be accomplished if we have strong gun laws and actually enforce them, such as prosecuting firearms dealers that sell without background checks.

Neil Rotter

Sanford