Letters to the Editor: This is what needs to replace the 2nd Amendment

Two people embrace next to a memorial with flowers outside a Tops store
Mourners pay their respects at a makeshift memorial outside Tops Friendly Markets in Buffalo, N.Y.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: The mass shooting at the Laguna Woods church on May 15 and the Buffalo mass murder the day before add to the sad history of hate crimes and the gun violence epidemic. Americans are tired of “thoughts and prayers” and the lack of action by politicians, especially Republicans who block gun control legislation by hiding behind the 2nd Amendment. (“A new generation of white supremacist killer: shedding blood with internet winks, memes and livestreams,” May 15)

We’re way overdue to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment; piecemeal state gun control laws no longer stem this tide of blood.

I suggest that a replacement amendment include the right to keep guns for home protection and hunting, but it also should close all background check loopholes, ban all assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, confine banned weapons to gun clubs only, develop more banned-gun buyback programs, and improve mental health outreach efforts.


With the billions of dollars spent yearly to treat gun injuries, bury the fallen and investigate shootings, we need to urge our leaders to stop wringing their hands and to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment.

Bob Ladendorf, Los Angeles


To the editor: One of three anti-gun writers whose letters were published May 15 laments that when the 2nd Amendment was written, only muskets were used. But if muskets were “state of the art” weapons at that time, it is reasonable that we should have state of the art weapons now. Why? Our enemies have them now.

Another writer notes that the 2nd Amendment references a “well-regulated militia.” She is correct but apparently hasn’t read the Militia Acts of 1792. Signed into law only months after the Bill of Rights was ratified, they defined the militia as men between the ages of 18 and 45, contravening the objection to 18-year-olds having guns.

Finally, another anti-gun writer laments that her granddaughter cannot drive a car. But, when her daughter is 18, she’ll have both the right and the means to defend herself, as do other Americans.

Mike Schleeter, San Jose


To the editor: I request subsequent articles and commentary no longer use the suspect’s name. Please don’t give him the attention. He doesn’t deserve to be remembered.

We should remember only the people whose lives ended. Thank you.

Susan Guzman, Buena Park


To the editor: He was 18 years old. He was bored. He could buy guns. He could buy assault weapons. He got his information on a platform designed to sell ads. He stoked his hate.

No one will stop him. Not the ones selling guns, not the ones selling ads, not the ones buying lies, not the ones seeking power.

In America, hate sells, and guns speak loudest of all.

William Seaton, Sherman Oaks


To the editor: You published a long article on the rise of hate-filled propaganda and yet avoided any mention of Fox News or specifically Tucker Carlson.

The problem of misinformation will never be solved if we can’t honestly acknowledge the source.

Maribeth Ackerman, Lomita