Re "Guns not just about hunting" (Letters, Jan. 15): The letter writer makes the ad nauseum pro-gun argument based on perceived Second Amendment rights as if we still live in the 18th century when a militia was necessary to defend a fledgling republic.
He ignores the term "well-regulated" and the fact that weapons at the time were muzzle-loaders and not military-style weapons with high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Should we go back to a strict interpretation of the original Constitution? That would mean that we could own slaves -- and as a woman my right to vote would be taken away.
The U.S. Constitution is not a static document but a dynamic expression of basic rights that can be re-intepreted over time depending on changing circumstances. This includes restricting certain weapons whose main purpose is to threaten, terrorize, and kill people in large numbers.
-- Marilyn F. Nutter, Sutter Creek