Gun Control and the Constitution

* In response to “Taming the Monster: The Guns Among Us,” editorial, Dec. 10:

Your editorials in favor of gun control never cease to amaze me. The Fourth and Fifth amendments to the Constitution protecting individuals against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination obviously seem to stand as an impediment to your master plan. Why don’t you just come right out and say it? Tell us all that what you really want is the abolition of the Bill of Rights, save one--the First Amendment.

DON MEAR

Los Angeles

* Your editorial states that your poll shows Americans are against gun ownership and favor more gun control by a margin of 2 to 1. Yet the same article states that in California, 56,236 guns were sold last month and that gun sales hit a new high during the Thanksgiving weekend. How do you explain this contradiction of your poll?

In stating that Americans back President Clinton in challenging the National Rifle Assn., I wonder if people realize that the NRA is an organization representing the common beliefs of over 3 million Americans.

LUIS GRANADOS

Sun Valley

* I am an attorney, a former reserve police officer, member of the NRA and Quail Unlimited and an avid hunter. I have read all of your editorials on gun control and found them problematic to say the least.

Indeed, your solutions attempt to “put the genie back in the bottle.” The approach provided by The Times is senseless and in my opinion unconstitutional. Your approach is to take the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding and leave them practically defenseless in the face of ever-growing violence. Yet, can The Times realistically believe that social reform is on the horizon, which would effectively control the growth and spread of random attacks?

If there is one thing we have learned from the Los Angeles riots, it is the fact that the police cannot be everywhere at one time. As much as I respect and understand the difficulty of a street officer’s job, the reality of the situation is that one will not be camped in front of my home 24 hours a day. I, as a father and a husband, believe I have the right to use deadly force to protect my family from attack by a thug. How does The Times intend to return my missing sense of security in exchange for my guns?

It is unconstitutional to pass a law that would make it illegal for me to possess a weapon I own today. The Constitution under Article I makes it illegal for Congress and the states, respectively, to pass an ex post facto law. Moreover, The Times simply ignores the mandate of the Second Amendment. It is clear from the Madison Papers that the Second Amendment was designed to protect the people from the exact intrusion that is now being discussed by our government. One of the greatest fears of the framers of the Constitution was that the people could not protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

ANTHONY M. GARCIA

Aliso Viejo

* Each day that I see a Times editorial such as “Taming the Monster: The Guns Among Us,” I am grateful. Thank you for your courage, your consistency and your clarity. The tide may indeed be turning in favor of sanity: a comprehensive national gun law, for starters. Please do not stop debunking the myths of “righteous” gun ownership that have for too long gone unchallenged. Gun ownership does not guarantee protection or defense, but may actually be contributing to our unhealthy attitudes of helplessness and powerlessness. Keep showing us the numbers, please, and keep featuring stories about courageous officials such as Assemblyman Terry Friedman and President Clinton, and the nation’s mayors and police chiefs. We need to continue to hear the message loud and clear.

NANCY FISHER

Sherman Oaks

* If guns do not kill, please tell the NRA to watch those bullets and check the coroner’s office. A deranged man (his racial distress came out the end of a gun) boards a public carrier and snuffs out the lives of people he does not know(“Gunman Kills Four on N.Y. Commuter Train,” Dec. 8). Could he have done it with a knife, hammer, car or jack handle? I do not believe he could have harmed 23 people with the above items.

Why are we (Americans) afraid to enact true gun laws? We are afraid of each other. We are afraid that whites will have the guns and the guns will be taken from blacks. We are afraid blacks will have guns and the guns will be taken from the whites.

MAXCY D. FILER

Compton

* How many innocent people will die by gunfire before we wake up to the fact that the only way to stop random killing is to make everyone who owns a gun turn it in, with a stiff jail term and fine mandatory for anyone who does not comply? Hunting rifles could be exempt to placate the NRA, but no other guns should be allowed in private hands. The Brady bill is merely a Band-Aid in trying to solve the problem. Guns have to be outlawed!

MARIAN A. MIRKEN

Rolling Hills Estates