The letter in the paper Feb. 25 about the Second Amendment was spot on. I have always wondered why the NRA can so easily disregard the "a well regulated Militia" part. The Founding Fathers were exquisite wordsmiths. They didn't put any "filler" in the Constitution. They had passionate discussions about every single word, so if it's there, it's because it mattered to them. It's the first part; they wanted attention to be paid to it. Amending the Constitution to reflect modern reality would be ideal, but remember, the Equal Rights Amendment has languished for decades and is a lot less controversial than gun control. But constitutionally, regulating arms seems to be well within the purview of the federal government already.
So have today's politicians lost the skill of having passionate discussion about difficult topics? Well, as Upton Sinclair once said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” The gun and ammunition manufacturers give incredible amounts of money to the NRA, which in turn spends it not only on direct campaign donations, but on lobbying, attack ads, propaganda and threats to back primary challengers against any politician who dares to even ask for a real debate on the issues. The problem is the obscene, insane amount of money spent muddying the waters every time the issue is brought up. The one thing the gun lobby always pushes is "More guns will solve the problem."
We have been living and dying by that solution. It has only made more money for gun manufacturers. It hasn't made us safer. If you are a law-abiding gun owner, would a bit of regulation really be so onerous? Or is your "right" to own any kind of weapon worth more than a child's life?
Tanya Goldstein, Salem