Opinion: Could the framers have foreseen slavish devotion to the 2nd Amendment?

To the editor: The simplicity with which Timothy Waters enters the gun debate is compelling. He notes that the 2nd Amendment is an amendment, and that the framers of our Constitution acknowledged future changes would be necessary to “provide for the general welfare” and invented a mechanism to do just that as events dictated. (“We don’t need the 2nd Amendment — we need a real debate about guns,” Opinion, Oct. 13)

Are we not persuaded that we have a long list of events?

The intellectual universe of the firearm safety discussion (it is not a political debate in the sense that a legislative outcome is seriously anticipated) is presently owned and operated by an industrial lobby. Waters suggests that there is room in that discussion for ideas other than slavish adherence to an 18th century provision.

Uncritical obedience to a text presumed to be sacred has given us patriarchy, segregation and now bump stocks. We can do better. Indeed, the Constitution’s authors thought we would.

David DiLeo, San Clemente

..

To the editor: Soldiers at the end of the day must lock their weapons in the arms room, while John Doe can wear his into the local restaurant, church or school, citing part of the text of the 2nd Amendment as his only argument.

Waters’ piece will not change enough minds to either change our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or to amend the Constitution to remove it. The gun lobby will not let that happen.

So, I give up. Instead, I will use their logic.

I will become an “originalist” and ask that every modern gun except those used by the military or the police be collected and melted down. The metal could be used to build 325 million muzzleloaders that can be given to every man, woman and child in the nation. We will disassemble the ammunition and place the powder in little cloth bags, and the projectiles can be melted to produce spherical shot.

No citizens will be forced to accept the muzzleloaders, but if they do, they will automatically be enrolled in the well-regulated militia.

Sanford Cook, San Luis Obispo

..

To the editor: Waters’ investigation of the idea of gun “rights” can help America begin an important discussion. But I ask that his idea be expanded to so many areas where something is declared a “right,” which removes it from rational discourse.

How about we just use “good idea” instead, so we can think about why something is the best option?

Al Stroberg, Ojai

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook