A letter writer had it right when he stated that our discussion about the constitutional right to bear arms needs to be put into a meaningful perspective [“Which way on weapons?” June 22].
It’s the height of hypocrisy for anyone to proclaim himself an “originalist” if he holds that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear assault rifles, Thompson machine guns, etc.
Let’s protect the right to bear muskets or bolt-action rifles, and maybe derringers or six-shot revolvers. These should be lethal enough for the protection for any civilian.
Leonard M. Schnitzer, Hauppague
I am a gun owner and pistol-license holder, and I may have a solution to the assault-weapon controversy.
To own a pistol, the holder must go through extensive interviews and background checks, including fingerprinting, which generally take months to complete. Why not add another category to this license — assault-weapon ownership? The weapon would not be banned, which might satisfy the gun lobby. And the tougher licensing requirements might satisfy opponents of assault weapons.
Joel Sparber, Eastport
I believe most Americans are fed up with Congress’ inaction on major issues [“ ‘Give us a vote,’ ” News, June 23].
Even when members do push legislation, it’s often in contrast to what most Americans want. This is a democracy. Major decisions on important issues should be voted on by the people.
Congress has misused its power for too long. Let the majority decide what should be done about guns. As usual, common sense escapes us.
Chuck Lomino, Plainview