Your Opinions: Second Amendment debate | Is it time to change or dig in?

Your Opinions: Second Amendment debate | Is it time to change or dig in?

Gun Rights

John Gibbins / San Diego Union-Tribune Re “Judge blocks ban on ammo capacity” (March 30): U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez defends his decision on Proposition 63 because gun owners “ran out of bullets while confronting intruders in their homes.” My research revealed two accounts: one where someone shot and still had a bullet left when the intruder went down and the other was a National Rifle Association article. Benitez cites our “colonial past” and unfairly punishing people “because of a few mad men with guns and ammunition.” I understand bringing up colonial times. That’s when we created the Second Amendment. The comparison of colonials with flintlocks to mad men with assault rifles doesn’t make sense. Neither does comparing “bad political speech” and “warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures” to bullets. It’s an apples and oranges argument. Bullets kill people. One mad person with an assault weapon is too much. Abolish the Second Amendment. Get rid of guns and ammunition. Or, are we advocating vigilantism? Don Weedmark South Park Re “State AG Becerra seeks delay on ammunition ruling” (April 3): In revoking the grandfathered status of property without providing compensation, Proposition 63 violated the Fifth Amendment of the federal Constitution, and Article I Section 1 of our state Constitution, which defines acquiring, possessing and protecting property as “inalienable” rights. Property must be taken only through due process, such as eminent domain. No right can properly be eliminated through a popularity contest. Letters and commentary policy The U-T welcomes and encourages […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.