In response to W. Reidel’s letter that appeared in the Auburn Reporter on Oct. 30, I did not say, “Repeal the Second Amendment.” I said, “Amend the Second Amendment.” There is a big difference in definition between repeal and amend.

To repeal means to revoke, rescind or cancel. Or, to remove. To amend means to revise, alter or change to make it more accurate and up-to-date.

What I said in my letter that W. Reidel responded to with so much scorn is this: “I am not totally against owning a firearm. For I own a firearm myself, “a six-shooter, and to me that’s enough to protect my family and myself from criminals or from home invasion.”

I don’t believe we need assault weapons, the kind that are used by soldiers in battlefields overseas in protecting ourselves from criminals here at home in our country.

To own those kind of killing machines is a dangerous thing, I think. But based on the “antiquated” words of the Second Amendment, the NRA and its fanatic followers said, anybody can own those kind of weapons. Weapons that are used in mass killings of children, students in schools, and innocent people in theaters and shopping plazas.

I also made no mention about “tearing out the First Amendment” nor “repealing the Fifth Amendment.”

But according to him, my opinion on amending the Second Amendment would be equivalent to “repealing and tearing out” those two Amendments.

So, once again, amend, not “repeal” the Second Amendment. And ban the NRA for endorsing that anybody can own those dangerous weapons that are used in mass killings of school children and innocent people in this great country of ours.

– Jesse Jose