I’m writing in praise of Dr. deLespinasse’s article, “Protect schools, home-security, hunters: Amend the Second Amendment” in the Gaylord Herald Times on June 17. His proposal is the most novel suggestion I have ever read in the continuing U.S. gun debate.
As Dr. de Lepinasse correctly notes, the Founding Fathers wanted: “A well-regulated militia …” not everyone owning whatever weapon they fancied and in any quantity they desire!
The only comparison to the constitutional Second Amendment admonition for “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” is the National Guard. I know that the National Guard is well trained in the use of their weapons. I wish I could believe that the same is true of the youngest Americans who at 18 are usually not well trained in hardly anything.
We can all agree with Dr. deLespinasse that “Amending the Constitution is usually harder than merely enacting laws.” Think of the still unpassed Equal Right Amendment (ERA), for example.
Still, wouldn’t trying to amend the Second Amendment to ban assault weapons be worth the effort? We know that when we had a congressional ban on assault weapons 1994-2004, the number of mass shootings was greatly reduced. Don’t our kids, teachers and seniors deserve better from us than to be “sitting ducks” waiting for the next slaughter?
Dr. John J. Mc Caugney, Ed.D.
This article originally appeared on The Petoskey News-Review: Letter: It's worth trying to amend Second Amendment to ban assault rifles