While I can agree that the banning of firearms is preposterous as most firearms are obtained illegally, I cannot agree with all the arguments brought forth by Jacob Vial in his April 2nd column titled “Give me back my bullets.” While those against gun legislation argue that the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, the part about a well-regulated militia is never mentioned. The Second Amendment can indeed be interpreted as the people having the right to bear arms, but it can also be interpreted as the people having the right to bear arms in order to maintain a militia. I can understand the argument for each side, but I am not writing to argue the interpretation of the amendment. I am writing to understand why the column was critical of the Assault Weapons Ban that outlaws the sale and possession of many automatic and semi-automatic weapons, as well as commonly used target rifles and shotguns.

Why would any normal citizen want or even need an automatic assault rifle? I’ve never seen people hunt an animal with an assault rifle or even a shotgun for that matter. Limiting the sale of handguns is futile as most handguns are obtained illegally, but instead of advocating for more guns, what is wrong with stricter gun regulation? Gun regulation can at least decrease the amount of accidental deaths associated with firearms. Crime is a problem that has faced this country for years, and there is no sure solution, but while I can agree that more handguns in the general public would possibly scare criminals into thinking twice, I cannot reject the idea of gun regulation, and cannot possibly advocate the sale and possession of automatic weapons to the general public.

Jerome Tobolski

freshman in Engineering