New Times / Letter To The Editor
The following articles were printed from New Times [newtimesslo.com] - Volume 28, Issue 46
An amendment is the answer
Christopher Maccarone - Grover Beach
Mr. Mallon (“What will end the obsession?” June 5), I, too, share your anger and outrage over the killings in Isla Vista and Sandy Hook, as well as all of the past, present, and future massacres. Every citizen in our country, both good and bad, benefits from the law of the land: the Constitution of the United states of America. Your passionate, profanity-laced diatribe serves as nothing more than vented, raw hostility aimed squarely at the NRA and Second Amendment extremists. Congress, the President, and above all, the United States Supreme Court have all taken an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”
Sure, we can take potshots at the Second in hopes that some law, any law, may deter or eliminate bloodshed. Fair enough. But bear in mind, Mr. Mallon, free will and determination to carry out any deed will always trump any law. You wanna make a change, pal? Nip it squarely in the bud permanently? Then stop your bitching, bleeding heart over those helpless, innocent, children, teens, and others whose sad destinies of lives tragically ended and do something credibly meaningful.
Channel your passion in a positive way. The only credible way to effectively change gun laws is to create a new Constitutional amendment to address that issue specifically. That is the answer, the Holy Grail to ending this carnage. The question that you and all others who read this is simple: When will the tipping point come when the thousands or tens of thousands of future deaths demand that we take action?
Certainly, other issues arise that compel the importance of the Second Amendment that the Framers believed were necessary, such as defense against tyranny in our own government. Something to think about.
When is enough, enough? Wasted innocent lives and massive amounts of wasted words in response. A new Constitutional amendment to replace another? Think about it.
What say you, Mr. Mallon?