To the editor: Thanks to Michael Hiltzik for his article outlining the shortcomings of the “originalist” approach of some Supreme Court justices, especially as it relates to the Second Amendment. Article V of our Constitution details the process for enacting amendments when deemed necessary. If protecting us from modern gun violence isn’t necessary, I honestly don’t know what is. Therefore, I think it’s time to consider the proposition that Second Amendment originalism is, in fact, unconstitutional.
Timothy Baumgartner, Torrance
..
To the editor: There is no such thing as “gun violence,” because the use of that term gives the entirely false impression that guns, inanimate mechanical objects, appear and do something on their own and are responsible for their misuse. Criminal and other misuse is not a public health problem and there is no gun “crisis.” The constant attacks on the individual right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns for lawful purposes must end. Firearms are already heavily regulated and there is no need for more laws that negatively affect Second Amendment rights.
The comparison of tobacco and smoking to firearms is invalid because gun ownership by law-abiding citizens does not affect their health or the health of others. Every state should be required to keep accurate records of the crimes that armed, law-abiding citizens prevent, and the federal government should publish the statistics annually.
David R. Russell, Santa Monica
