Letter: The Real Aim of Gun Control
To the Editor:
When Gabby Giffords and her husband commiserate with parents of shooting victims in Newtown, Conn., the parents are being used as political props. When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spends his millions on various gun-control issues, he’s diverting attention from problems in New York City.
Nothing in the gun-control measure that failed in the Senate would have prevented the massacre in Newtown. The guns and ammunition Adam Lanza used on his mother and then on the children were purchased by his mother. As far as I know, nothing in her background would have prevented her from making the purchases. The carnage might have been prevented if someone in the school had a weapon and knew how to use it. Few people want to discuss the idea of self-protection, and that’s unfortunate.
On July 6, there was a shooting in Brooklyn, N.Y., in which one teenager was killed and three others were injured. This is only the most recent in a number of gun-related incidents in New York City. New York has some of the most draconian laws and regulations with respect to gun ownership. In spite of those laws and regulations, people in New York City who are bent on getting a gun and using it are able to do so. Bloomberg is missing something.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear and unequivocal. U.S. citizens have the right to carry a weapon. Given that, why haven’t gun-control advocates proposed repealing the Second Amendment, replacing it with language that expresses what they want, and then allow the people to decide as provided in Article 5? I suspect that hasn’t happened because gun-control advocates know that the effort would fail. I also suspect that they are unwilling to publicize their real intention, which is to completely take away the ability of citizens to own and carry weapons. Instead, they’ll continue their efforts to circumvent the Constitution in hopes of getting what they want. I hope these efforts will continue to fail.