Amendment should not block regulation

Excepting our military, absolutely no American "needs" an automatic weapon of any kind. When the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment, was ratified in 1791, the most commonly used weapon was a flintlock pistol and muskets. Both weapons used round metal balls of various sizes up to 16 ounces.

Since then, powder-activated lead bullets were invented in the Colt 45 revolver of 1835, more than 50 years after the Second Amendment was ratified. The revolver was then considered an automatic weapon.

Therefore, I support no restrictions of any kind for American citizens, who can and should own either a flintlock pistol and/or a musket. Everything invented since needs strict restrictions by legislation.

Electricity, trains, airplanes, automobiles, even construction of buildings are all regulated by a combination of federal and state laws. All motor vehicles, invented around 100 years after the Second Amendment was adopted, are among the most federally regulated things in this country. Why?

Why not regulate all the types of firearms invented since the Second Amendment? Or deregulate all motor vehicles? Let me choose how much protection and fuel economy I get from my vehicle.

I don't want my child's teachers to bring guns to school. What's to prevent a crazy person from overpowering a teacher and taking that weapon? Or, if "safely" locked away, how would a teacher defend a surprise attack by someone wielding a military-style weapon? Wouldn't the teachers also need to have an assault style weapon to take on someone wielding an assault rifle? How many teachers want to go into combat?

The NRA rightly claims it's not their fault for the school shootings. I agree. It's the fault of the our greedy and spineless political "leaders" who refuse to regulate firearm ownership.

Ernest Kovacs

Naperville