Type of weapon matters

It’s hard to understand the paranoia surrounding the Second Amendment of the American Constitution. I can understand carrying a handgun for self-defense against an intruder, or against assault in a tough neighborhood. And I understand my friends who enjoy hunting, or competing at marksmanship.

The writers of our Constitution saw the need for “a well-regulated militia,” and we still see that. The NRA’s claims notwithstanding, no one seriously believes “the government is going to take away all our guns.” Only a fool would use an assault rifle as defense in a crowd. It takes only a single bullet, or at most five or six, to bring down a killer.

But why this desire to possess a weapon that can fire many bullets in a few seconds? The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. But does anyone seriously claim the right to own and use bombs? Or any weapon of mass destruction? Because that’s the basic difference between a handgun with a 10-round magazine and the type of weapon used in Orlando or Paris or San Bernardino. How many more have to die before we as a nation come to our senses and outlaw private possession of military weapons?

Keith Dahlberg

Kellogg