State Auditor Rebecca Otto's condemnation of U.S. Rep. Tim Walz for taking a stand against assault weapons as both compete for the DFL endorsement for governor took my breath away ("Walz's pivot away from NRA a risk," Feb. 23). Otto criticized Walz for being late to the table on this issue, saying that he had many opportunities in the past to distance himself from the NRA. She suggested that to do so now is an act of political opportunism.
Do we not want people to change? If nobody changes, then we will continue to be in thrall to the NRA. Isn't that what the brave young people from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have been calling for in the week since the shooting at their Florida school? They, and students across the country, including Minneapolis, have been crying out, demanding that lawmakers change.
Bravo to Walz for changing. If more lawmakers do the same, we might finally break the ugly grip that the NRA has had on our country. And perhaps our children will not have to go to school each day wondering whether it will be their last.
Miriam Karmel, Minneapolis
• • •
The writer of the Feb. 21 editorial counterpoint "Second Amendment means just what it says" (Opinion Exchange, Feb. 22) conveniently omitted the first 13 words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … ." If, as the writer maintains, "the militia is you and me," then this nation should have no problem with this militia being "well regulated." Sensible gun laws are indeed "necessary to the security of a free State." When 96 Americans die from gun violence each day, we are no longer free.
Karen Barstad, Minneapolis
• • •
It seems to me that there is a glaring omission in all the recent debate around gun control. Today there is technology available that limits the use of a particular gun to its owner. If all gun use required the fingerprint of its registered owner in order to operate, there would be little or no black market selling of guns. This piece of technology in tandem with strict background checks and rigorous registration processes would go a long way in reducing gun violence in our country. Why is there no legislation requiring gun manufacturers to make only these types of weapons? It would answer the concerns of Second Amendment advocates as well.
Marie Judd, St. Louis Park
• • •