Re: “Why we shouldn’t stand for ‘reasonable’ gun laws,” March 2 Jon Caldara column.
While it appears that Jon Caldara’s column is aimed squarely at provoking a response by patronizing and antagonizing those who disagree with his position, I’ll rise to the bait.
Caldara addresses those who are “genuinely” interested in understanding gun owners’ unwillingness to compromise — implying that there are lesser beings who profess interest but are not “genuine” about it. Earth to Jon: It’s not about you! It’s about the more than 30,000 people who are killed in this country every year with guns. Gun owners’ opinions are relevant only to the degree to which they help or hinder fixing this obscene and uniquely American problem. Caldara’s failure even to mention the problem, much less try to address it, renders his column relevant only as an exposition of one of the root causes of this epidemic that is killing Americans by the tens of thousands (more since 1970 than in all the wars we’ve been involved in since our founding).
The future generations whose welfare Caldara claims to espouse would be better served by saving them from continuation of the wholesale slaughter that’s killing current generations.
մdz, ٱԱ
Contrary to Jon Caldara’s musings, the U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed the concept of reasonable gun control laws. In 2008, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller upheld the argument that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to bear arms. However Justice Antonin Scalia went on to explain that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on commercial sale of arms.” Therefore, the right to bear arms is not an unfettered right. The Supreme Court explicitly permits government authorities to impose conditions and qualifications on the sale of guns. Thus, imposing magazine limits, universal background checks for sale of all guns, waiting periods and age limitations would all pass constitutional muster. This is why we can and should stand for reasonable gun control laws.
Ѿ.Dz, Denver
I’m rolling my eyes in reaction to Jon Caldara’s statement that he, as a human being, is “sovereign unto himself.” I know his intent is to be inflammatory. But if he really believes that he has the supreme power and authority to do whatever he pleases based only on his concept of right and wrong regardless of the consequences to others or himself, he is the one who is being ridiculous. I suggest he move to a very remote community of like-minded individuals and send The Denver Post regular updates on how that is working out for him and that community.
ѲٲܲԴ,Littleton
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
