The Constitution protects many of our rights as U.S. citizens. Those rights, however, have always been subject to reasonable limitations. President Reagan, for example, signed the law that banned the sale of automatic weapons, like machine guns, because he deemed it to be a reasonable limitation on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
I just read Ms. Stefanik's comments in The Post-Star concerning the Second Amendment. She stated that because "law-abiding citizens ... own semi-automatic weapons," she "respects their Second Amendment rights." But she also said that she "does not support legalizing automatic weapons." She does not say why she supports restricting one weapon and not the other. I assume it's because she believes that automatic weapons are so dangerous that they should be illegal, but semi-automatic weapons are not dangerous enough to warrant similar treatment.
Semi-automatic weapons (like the AR-15s used to kill children in Newtown, concert goers in Las Vegas, and high school students in Parkland) have become the weapon of choice for mass killers. My question to Stefanik is how many more innocent people will have to die, or have their lives shattered by injury or the loss of a loved one, before she will support restricting these weapons?
Richard Sherman, Saratoga Springs