Repeal the Second Amendment: ‘No one has the absolute right to own any weapon they want’

The context of the right to bear arms

The Second Amendment must be understood in the context of the time it was proposed. A single shot, muzzle-loading weapon that took more than 60 seconds to arm is quite different from a weapon of war designed not just to kill but to obliterate the victim.

A wide-open frontier with dangers from the British and other groups attacking, and the necessity for hunting to feed a family is quite different from our current reality. An environment in which a "standing militia" was needed to provide immediate defensive protection is quite different from today's reality of police departments, National Guard units and a large standing military.

Landmark gun ruling: Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law, making it easier for Americans to carry handguns

The first 10 Amendments, the so-called Bill of Rights, each had historical antecedents causing many to raise issues that would prevent the approval of the Constitution. Madison worked hard to formulate them and ultimately the document went into effect. There is nothing sacred about anything in the Constitution. Imperfect humans, trying to do the best they could, created a government on paper. No one has the absolute right to own any weapon they want. The good of "The People" supersedes any individual's desires to have what they please.

Jerry Ragan, Eugene

Repeal the Second Amendment

Two days after the massacre of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Sen. Ted Cruz was asked by a British reporter as to why there are so many mass shootings in America. Cruz just walked away without answering.

The answer is obvious. America has the Second Amendment and no other Western country has an equivalent in its constitution. Meanwhile, America continues to have its all too frequent mass killings while the rest of the world rarely experiences such tragedies.

Bipartisan gun deal: Gun safety bill clears key procedural hurdle, setting up final vote in Senate

It is painfully clear that the Second Amendment provides an impenetrable buffer against any sensible gun control legislation. The NRA has basically unfettered license to sell any weapons to anybody reaping huge profits. Our politicians, mostly Republicans, hide behind the Second Amendment to justify their stance in blocking any sensible gun laws, and, at the same time, have their hand-out accepting sickening amounts of campaign money from the NRA.

The only way we will ever curb this utterly predictable carnage in our society is to repeal the Second Amendment or at least revise it to permit “some weapons under certain conditions.” Are we willing to do this? Sadly, the alternative is more of the same – “Only in America.”

Geoff Colvin, Eugene

Reinforcing the NRA's stance

Gun safety law, what a farce. There is nothing different about guns, ammo, etc. The mental health component just reinforces the NRA stance that it is crazy people who kill people, not guns. This is not progress, but a slap in the face to the victims and their families.

Don French, Eugene

Make gun ownership akin to smoking cigarettes

To, “provide for the common defense” is in the preamble of U.S. Constitution, listed as one of the six reasons why, in 1783, the Constitution was written.

“Common defense” is what the militia did in those days, and the need for a “a well-regulated militia” was why the Second Amendment was added in 1791.

The confusion comes in the last line, which says, “to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” To bear arms? In 1791, arms were borne by the militia. To keep arms? In 1791, arms were kept in the armory of the militia.

Arms manufacturers and sellers have become wealthy with the help of the Supreme Court mis-reading in 2008 of the 27 words of the Second Amendment. Its mis-reading it to mean that it was talking about individual rights, not the militia. That mis-reading has also been central in the gun related death of more than 30,000 people every year from suicide, accident and murder.

We must start thinking of gun ownership the way we think of smoking cigarettes in public places: considered reprehensible by almost everyone. Only then can enough like-minded politicians be elected and a solution to the gun problem be found.

Lionel Youst, Coos Bay

A viable source of information?

Based upon the criteria that you don’t destroy what you love or lie to those you respect, Fox “News” has demonstrated its complete and utter contempt for the truth, our country and its own viewers by refusing to air the first Jan. 6 hearing. To think that anybody would consider it a viable source of information after that is mind boggling.

David Hixson, Springfield

This article originally appeared on Register-Guard: 2nd Amendment gun laws draw strong letters from readers