Readers Write: Gun reform, the East Wing (R.I.P.), political polarization

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

A recent letter writer claimed that legislators can’t define an “assault rifle.” That brings to mind Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous remark about obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” The same could be said for assault weapons.

Even without modifications like a bump stock, an AR-15 can fire around 60 rounds a minute. A 30-round magazine is standard, and high-capacity “drums” holding up to 100 rounds can be swapped out in seconds. That’s not a hunting rifle; it’s a weapon built for combat.

The same writer also argued that laws are often written by people who don’t understand the subject. On that point, we agree. It’s just too bad that same concern isn’t applied to legislation on clean energy, reproductive rights or transgender issues.

Greg Kjos, St. Louis Park

•••

Pete Steinhagen, St. Paul

•••

I am rarely more dumbfounded than when gun advocates continue to argue the need for weapons to resist government tyranny, as the writer of “The 2nd Amendment is not about hobbies” (Oct. 22) does.

Assuming the government turns tyrannical, it will most likely have the U.S. military, including National Guard units, at its beck and call. So tell me how uncoordinated little bands of civilians, with only a small handful having any basic military or organizational experience, armed with a potpourri of semi-automatic rifles and pistols, is going to be able to be more than a small nuisance against large professional armed forces with heavy armored vehicles, helicopter gunships, smart bombs, cluster munitions, satellite intelligence and fully coordinating encrypted radio communications?

The tired, romantic, minuteman militia model needs to be buried since minutemen did have some parity in weapons with the British, and our revolution was not won by them but by two large well-trained, well-armed professional armies and fleets: American and French. Please abandon this absurd fantasy.

•••

In a recent (Oct. 22) letter, one of the writers spoke about attending a recent forum where the focus was on gun laws. The writer who attended the forum was critical of the fact that none of the speakers could provide the writer with a clear and accurate definition of an assault weapon. The writer goes on to say, “If the people writing these laws can’t clearly define the terms they’re using, how can we expect the laws to make sense or be effective? ... Laws should be written by people who understand the subject matter.” It is not surprising if the speakers at this forum could not provide a simple, concise description of an assault weapon that satisfied the writer. Defining an assault weapon in a way that minimizes gun manufacturers’ ability to skirt lawmakers’ intent is complicated, as evidenced by the fact that a DFL proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is 19 pages long.

In a recent (Sept. 27) interview, GOP House Speaker Lisa Demuth was asked the following question: “Some academic studies that say at least high-capacity magazine [bans], things like that, could save lives. Why aren’t we doing it?” Demuth’s response was: “Potentially that could be … A lot of times we throw out different terminology for things without fully knowing, and I am learning about what some of the terminology around magazines and capacity and where that lands around firearms that are out there. I am continually learning because it is not anything that I have been well versed in.”

How is it possible that the GOP House speaker, who has been a GOP leader in the House since 2023, can state that she does not understand the concept of a high-capacity magazine? She was the GOP leader during the 2023-2024 session, when the DFL proposed assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans. The Annunciation Church shooter used an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine.

To paraphrase the writer, laws should not be opposed by people who don’t understand the subject matter.

Watching the White House’s East Wing being torn to shreds I have to ask myself: What’s next? Is President Donald Trump going to tear out the Lincoln Bedroom to put in a Big Beautiful Casino?

Donald Voge, Minneapolis

•••

How much longer before our would-be king demolishes the rest of the People’s House for some other pet project, a throne room, perhaps, with provisions for his countless Republican court jesters?

Leslie Martin, Inver Grove Heights

Haven’t we seen this playbook before?

Trump denies the allegation, lies about it and then his loyalists, like Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and others, fall in line to repeat the same talking points. Then comes the distraction, and the media cycle shifts and the public slowly becomes numb to the scandal.

Eventually, without explanation or accountability, Trump slides into the very thing he once denied, and we’re all expected to move on.

We’ve seen it with: Project 2025, tariffs, immigration, Gaza, the “Big Beautiful Bill.” And now, this ballroom boondoggle.

The pattern is always the same: Deny, lie, attack anyone who questions it, then quietly embrace the very thing you once rejected.

Paul Niebeling, Minneapolis

•••

The East Wing, a tangible example of what is happening metaphorically to our democracy on a daily basis.

Stewart Hanson, Excelsior

I am a retired registered nurse. I had the honor to work at the University of Minnesota in pediatric neurology. One of the doctors on the faculty once said to me, “You know, you don’t have to be brilliant to be a good doctor, but you do have to be curious.” I carried these words with me as I went forward in my career, became a clinical nurse educator and challenged staff to “want to know what you don’t know.”

When the country is so divided, I encourage active inquiry to see what the “other side” is thinking, whether that be a news feed, a podcast, a social media post, a sibling or an internet link. Be a good listener and a skeptical thinker. Investigate beyond the source.

If you want to be a good citizen, you don’t have to be brilliant, but you do have to be curious. It’s not only sage advice but a really interesting way to live your life.