June 30 - To the Editor:

The recent opinion piece by Cathryn Spreeman (�An attack on gun rights is an attack on us all� - June 29 Fosters) deserves a response. Her contention that both the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners are under attack is simply not true. There is no concerted effort to repeal the Second Amendment (and if there were, it would certainly fail), and no one in any position of authority has expressed any desire to �take away everyone�s guns.� In fact, people arguing for sensible restrictions on certain firearms often go out of their way to say they support the Second Amendment and that people should be able to keep their guns for hunting and home defense.

The desire to restrict certain gun rights has a long history, and several recent Supreme Court decisions explicitly support it. A decision earlier this year upheld California�s right to impose a 10-day waiting limit to purchase a gun. In the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the court specifically indicated that the Second Amendment allows for certain restrictions, including restrictions on gun sales, outlawing concealed weapons, restrictions on who is allowed to own a gun, and banning certain types of weapons.

In fact, banning certain types of guns also has a long history in this country. In 1936, sawed-off shotguns and Tommy guns were heavily taxed and regulated by both state and federal law, to the point that sales plummeted, which essentially had the effect of banning them. In 1986 (in a law signed by President Reagan), Congress made fully automatic weapons (machine guns) illegal. None of these actions constituted an �attack� on the Second Amendment, nor did the 1994 ban on �assault weapons,� which expired in 2004. Another ban on these weapons, which were specifically designed for combat, also would not constitute an attack on the Second Amendment, nor would it constitute an attack on NRA members, law-abiding gun owners, or hunters.

The Supreme Court recognizes that governments have a vested interest in protecting public health while also protecting our rights. It�s not always an easy call, but in the same way that the First Amendment would not protect someone who falsely shouted �fire� in a crowded theater and caused a panic (Schenck v. United States, 1919), the Second should not allow ownership of weapons that are specifically designed for of mass murder and have no other reasonable purpose. I�m sure that Ms. Spreeman would be a tad uncomfortable if her neighbors owned rocket-propelled grenades, truck-mounted 50-calibre machine guns, and ground-to-air missiles. They�re all �arms,� but they�re all illegal, and the Second Amendment is not imperiled by their illegality.

The idea that the Second Amendment is under attack, that lawful gun owners are under attack, and that �they want to take away your guns� are nothing more than standard tropes put out by the NRA to frighten their base, encourage more gun sales, and increase contributions to the NRA. They have no basis in fact.

As for the idea that the NRA leadership has �blood on its hands,� consider this: 1) There is a mass shooting, 2) People call for gun control, 3) NRA leadership cynically claims it�s an attack on the Second Amendment and �they're going to take all your guns away,� even though no one actually proposes that, 4) The whipped-up base buys more guns �while they still can� and gives more money to the NRA, 5) the gun industry sees profits rise and gives more money to the NRA, 6) the NRA gives more money to politicians who oppose any and all new gun restrictions, 7) Nothing changes, 8) There�s another mass shooting. Rinse. Repeat.

You can draw your own conclusions there.

Jim Mastro

Dover

�