Letters to the Editor: If I need to carry a bomb to feel safe, will the Supreme Court let me?

Handguns are displayed at a gun show in Las Vegas.
Handguns are displayed at a gun show in Las Vegas. The Supreme Court appears poised to strike down laws in California and New York that heavily restrict concealed carry.
(Associated Press)

To the editor: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh believes no government should prohibit me from carrying a concealed handgun as long as I believe I need it to “defend myself.” (“Supreme Court signals it’s likely to bolster the right to carry a concealed gun in public,” Nov. 3)

What kind of liberal, soft-on-crime reasoning is that? How in the world is a little handgun going to help me stay safe when I’m a terrible shot and my opponents are also armed with handguns?

I need grenades, rocket launchers and machine guns to survive in a world where the justices very well may rule that most people should be able to carry a concealed handgun. But I know they’ll soon be convinced that others also need grenades, rocket launchers and machine guns, so I’m definitely going to need a tank and perhaps even a fighter jet to mount any reasonable defense in the future.


I think the justices can see where this is going, so why don’t we just cut to the chase and permit all citizens to walk around with a hydrogen bomb in a box? That way we can all finally be safe and secure with our own personal, nuclear-armed, well-regulated militia, just as the 2nd Amendment intended.

Greg Seyranian, Redondo Beach


To the editor: The conservative justices have it backward. People trying to make it home at night in New York City or anywhere else would feel a whole lot safer if they knew there were no guns out there.

When the Constitution was written, guns weren’t the problem, governments were. Today, it is the people who are out of control.

If the framers could have seen the future, they would never have written the 2nd Amendment the way they did. In fact, if they could have seen the future, they would have outlawed trucks and autos along with guns, all of which can rip people up one side and down the other.

We have seen the future, and it is bleak.

Diane McBain, Woodland Hills



To the editor: On Halloween, a Texas woman allegedly aimed a gun at a 7-year-old trick-or-treater.

Is this the kind of “self-defense” the justices have in mind? What about Patricia and Mark McCloskey, who brandished their weapons at lawful protesters? Or Kyle Rittenhouse, who went to a protest with a semiautomatic rifle?

What if their self-defense weapons had discharged like the gun on the “controlled environment” movie set? Will a person of color have the same credibility to a jury if one claims “self-defense?”

This thinking will turn every community into the Wild West. Will the justices comfort all those who will suffer the consequences?

Carolyn Chriss, Sherman Oaks