Letter: Second Amendment
Originally published Monday, March 12, 2018 at 06:00a.m.
My review of court cases related to the second amendment revealed a nearly impenetrable thicket of decisions on who, what, when, and where regulation is required, who may regulate, and how much regulation is needed. This will lead to further litigation if any gun control laws are passed. Not mentioned is the humanitarian issue. The sole purpose of a gun is to destroy. The sole purpose of an assault weapon is more destruction, more quickly. An NRA attorney might be quick to mention that bullets destroy, not guns. There are a number of objects that, although not designed to destroy, are capable of doing so. For that reason, we have numerous restrictions on them.
Traffic lights, fire codes, speed limits, and building codes are but a few examples found acceptable to citizens. Illogically, control of the most destructive object outside of explosives (which are controlled) is the subject of controversy.
The support of our president for armed teachers will enhance gun sales and diminish the number of qualified teachers. The voracious appetite of Congress for reelection funds makes them prone to ignore the humanitarian issue and follow NRA lobbyists. Arizona appears to be no different. A recent web site claimed that Senator John McCain has received $7,740,521 from the NRA. In a lighter vein, it would have been helpful, historically correct, and more exact, if the second amendment read: “the right of the people to keep and bear muskets, shall not be infringed.”