It’s time to revise or do away with the 2nd Amendment

To the editor: We can debate concealed carry, preventing people on the no-fly list from buying guns or the National Rifle Assn. But it seems more important for us to revisit the 2nd Amendment in light of recent American experience. (“Senate votes down proposal to bar gun sales to terrorism suspects,” June 20)

About 30,000 people have been killed with guns in the United States every year since gun death records have been kept. Additionally, those states with greater gun ownership and more liberal gun laws have higher rates of gun death. Mass killings are on the rise, and we have just now experienced another such event at the hands of a homegrown terrorist.

Is the 2nd Amendment worth the equivalent of 10 Sept. 11 attacks per year? Do we want continual mass shootings? Obviously, the answer is no. Therefore, we must convince Congress and other elected leaders that we need to change the 2nd Amendment or add another one that will finally allow us to address the killings of so many Americans.

Dale Huss, Pacific Palisades

..

To the editor: I appreciate that Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) brought focus to the issue of gun control. But everyone knew before that vote happened how it would end.

There were two competing proposals per party up for vote. Both sides drafted proposals that would give them a narrative for the general election — talking points. That’s all.

As long as the NRA exists in its current form, there is nothing inside the box that can be done that will change things aside from winning control of everything legislative.

Jesse Albert, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: In response to the Orlando, Fla., night club massacre, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposes 2nd Amendment intrusions for persons (who could easily be U.S. citizens) whose names appear on terrorist watch lists. Any first-year law student would see that this would be on a direct collision course with the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, Clinton’s principal opponent, likely Republican nominee Donald Trump, would create even grander encroachments on all the enumerated benefits of the Bill of Rights.

So this election cycle is offering me a choice between a constitutional ignoramus and a neofascist. I consider neither qualified for the presidency. My only option is to vote for a third-party candidate.

Patrick Sullivan, Reseda

..

To the editor: When the Senate took no action on gun reform after the slaughter of 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, you knew that any chance for meaningful change was over.

Since then we’ve experienced mass shootings in Washington, Ft. Hood, Isla Vista, Charleston, Chattanooga, Roseburg, Colorado Springs, San Bernardino and Orlando. No wonder Americans are fed up with politicians who talk, posture and debate but at the end of the day do nothing.

John Snyder, Eagle Rock

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

MORE FROM OPINION

Brexit would be a disaster for Britain

Can Brazil protect the Olympic Games and its own citizens?

Obama won’t admit it, but the fight against Islamist radicalism will last generations