U.S. Constitution and Gun Control

* In response to “Taming the Gun Monster: Is It Constitutional?” editorial, Nov. 1:

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private self-defense.”

James Madison, The Federalist Papers: “Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

Since these gentlemen were among the framers of the Constitution, I think it’s safe to assume that they understood the intent of the Second Amendment far better than the legal scholars and social policy-makers of The Times editorial board. Enough said.

PAUL ROSS

Culver City

* I read your courageous editorial calling for effective gun control measures with gratitude that you have taken up this fight.

It is insane for us to continue permitting irresponsible and dangerous people to have free access to all kinds of firearms. I hope that the American people will, at long last, take measures to prevent these needless killings.

I am an 85-year-old man, who has lived in Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles without ever feeling the need to arm myself for protection, despite my youth in rural Wyoming where I used guns to kill squirrels, rabbits, ducks and wild sage hens. I am convinced that my chances of being killed would only be enhanced were I to carry a gun or keep one in my house or automobile.

Please keep up the good fight.

ALTON A. LINFORD

Temple City

* It is interesting that The Times thinks a federal ban on the private ownership of handguns and assault weapons is achievable, much less irreversible in the federal courts. There is currently no federal ban on the private ownership of fully automatic firearms (machine guns), just a licensing requirement. The Times is correct in stating that no federal court in this century has stated that the private ownership of firearms is protected by the Constitution; it was already stated in an 1897 decision (Robertson vs. Baldwin). Given this precedent and the unreasonableness of your proposal, I truly doubt if federal legislation would ever be promulgated.

Contrary to The Times’ assertion that the Second Amendment arose out of the colonists’ fear of a standing federal army, I believe the seizure of the colonists’ firearms and ammunition in 1770 by the Crown to be a more critical factor. The fact that little discussion of the right to possess firearms for hunting or self-protection is found by some Constitutional Convention scholars is not surprising, considering the universal nature of such activities at the time. You sort of take for granted that you can go out and shoot a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner and protect your family from the Indians with your own firearms.

KNUTE JOHNSON

Gorman

* The recent shooting of a 9-year-old child by a deranged El Cajon apartment dweller who hated children and the Halloween night “ambush” of three Pasadena boys are particularly tragic examples of the absurdity of the anti-gun control rationale which argues that law-abiding citizens must be allowed guns for self-protection. What should we do, issue AK-47s to kindergarteners so that they can defend themselves?

Please keep up your vigorous advocacy of a total ban on handguns. Say it loud, say it often. This country will become utterly unlivable if we do not do something radical to get rid of guns.

ORNAH R. BECKER

Los Angeles