Letters to the Editor: Gun control keeps staring down originalism at the Supreme Court

To the editor: Thank you to Michael Hiltzik for his article outlining the shortcomings of the “originalist” approach of some Supreme Court justices, especially regarding the 2nd Amendment. Article V of our Constitution details the process to enact amendments whenever deemed necessary. If protecting ourselves from modern gun violence is not necessary, I honestly don’t know what is. Therefore I think it is time to consider the proposition that 2nd Amendment originalism is, in fact, unconstitutional.

Timothy Baumgartner, Torrance

..

To the editor: There is no such thing as “gun violence” because the use of such a term gives the totally false impression that guns, inanimate, mechanical objects, jump up and do something by themselves and are responsible for their misuse. Criminal and other misuse is not a public health matter and there isn’t any gun “crisis.” There needs to be a stop to the constant attacks on the individual right of the law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. Guns are already heavily regulated, and there is no need for more laws that adversely affect 2nd Amendment rights.

The comparison of tobacco and smoking with guns is invalid because gun ownership by law-abiding citizens does not affect their health or the health of others. Each state should be required to keep accurate records of crimes prevented by armed, law-abiding citizens, and the federal government should publish the statistics each year.

David R. Russell, Santa Monica