Mediaboss Marketing

To the Editor:

I must respond to Dr. Gene Tinellis letter to your newspaper (To stop mass shootings, regulate weapons of war, April 13, 2023). The letter was not accurate and misleading.

First, the Second Amendment does not establish a well-regulated militia. That is done in the body of the Constitution, which was done to correct the lack of the ability of the government to create and pay for a military under the Articles of Confederation. The amendment has three commas that separate but connect four concepts.

The Amendment recognizes that a well-regulated militia is necessary to protect the country but has issues from what transpired with England. Therefore, the people had to have and be able use those arms in case the military tried to overthrow the government. Please read the Federalist Papers. And the Founders did not want this right to be infringed.

Being a Vietnam Vet, I am well aware of the use and operation of an M-16. The M-15 civilian version of the M-16 is an accurate and effective hunting rifle. If the hunter hits the target in the vital organ area, no meat is destroyed and there is little suffering of the animal. It is my right to own such a weapon if I so choose (I dont), but I dont have a right to drive under the Constitution.

All that said, as a political scientist, I recognize that assault style weapons can be made illegal if the courts found that there is a clear and present danger. The courts have used this concept to outlaw machine guns and yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. However, I would like to see anyone get this radical right-wing Supreme Court rule that these weapons are a clear and present danger to the populace of this country. Good luck with that.

Joseph W. Sallustio

Blossvale

More:
Founders did not want Second Amendment to be infringed (Your Letters) - syracuse.com