Readers React: ‘Shall not be infringed’ -- get it, anti-gun activists?

To the editor: The purpose of the new ordinance passed by the Los Angeles City Council restricting the size of gun magazines to no more than 10 rounds is to reduce the firepower of gun users. (“L.A. City Council bans large-capacity ammunition magazines,” July 28)

I respectfully submit that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is clear that the purpose of the new law in Los Angeles is to limit the firepower of some gun owners.

If that is not an infringement upon the right of people to keep and to bear arms, our dictionaries should be reprinted.

Those who wish to limit the use or ownership of firearms should seek to revoke the 2nd Amendment, not to enactment laws that conflict with it.


Herbert C. Haber, Northridge


To the editor: Once again, the National Rifle Assn. opposes an effort to ban high-volume ammunition magazines.

The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. At that time a rifle took about 15 seconds to load. A single shot could then be fired through a smooth bore, producing a highly inaccurate shot.


To claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment framers was to allow us all to carry and use weapons capable of firing dozens of rounds per minute is ludicrous.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind as that becomes more developed,” and that “with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.” He saw that at that early time the framers could not possibly predict what changes the future would bring.

Stand strong, L.A. What this country does not need is the ability to fire off even more shots without reloading

William Wright, Rancho Santa Margarita

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Get our weekly Opinion newsletter