Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. last fall. The addition of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh (standing right) is expected to cause the court to move rightward on an upcoming Second Amendment case.
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. last fall. The addition of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh (standing right) is expected to cause the court to move rightward on an upcoming Second Amendment case. (MANDEL NGAN / AFP/Getty Images)

Your editorial, "Guns and the new Supreme Court" (Jan. 24), clearly showed your writers have no real understanding of the Second Amendment. Describing the court as “ready to expand gun rights" is a completely ridiculous statement. The Second Amendment gives people in the United States the right to own guns with a few exceptions such as fully automatic weapons that are strongly controlled. What is at issue in the New York case you discuss is not to expand gun rights which already are contained in the U.S. Constitution, but the reduction of laws that have diluted this natural right (the basic right to possess whatever is legally and non-forcefully acquired).

Our rights are not granted by the government. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, we are “endowed” with “certain unalienable rights.” And to “secure these rights, Governments are instituted..." The Bill of Rights was inserted as the first 10 amendments to make sure the government implemented by the Constitution would be aware of the importance of these rights. Your editorial writers should be able to make such a distinction.

Advertisement

In addition, you could investigate the number of incidents of gun violence committed by owners of guns that were legally obtained or carried. I am sure your readers would find those statistics interesting.

David Griggs, Columbia

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement