Editor: I would like to address a few earlier letters about gun control.
Susan Curry gives us “If you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything”—a well-worn cliché, not some piece of striking and enlightened wisdom. It has simply been repurposed and regurgitated. Second their intentions are misguided.
Let’s be serious about the intent of the Second Amendment free from all attempts to re-interpret it. It is there for one purpose only and that is to enable the people to mount an effective resistance-to enable the people to fight back. That is impossible to do if you limit and restrict yourself. This is a clear attempt to limit your rights, hence phrasing “we aren’t limiting your rights, we just want to make sure your rights aren’t unlimited.” It is clever word play to convince you to accept a restriction of your rights. It is also important to understand that once these limitations are in place, they are unlikely to be removed. So it is perhaps unwise to demand the limitation of your own right to resist.
No, guns are not to blame because guns are inanimate objects that do nothing of their own volition and require an operator. The term “common sense gun laws” is rhetoric designed to paint anyone who disagrees as lacking in common sense. None of the proposed laws have any sense at all and are promoted by those who are supremely ignorant on the subject.
Anthony Fasolo mentions assault rifles and lack of need. Assault rifles are banned as they are defined as select fire weapons. What you are referring to are modern firearms, most of which are semi-automatic and magazine fed. So an “assault weapons ban” as it has recently been defined would be little different from a full repeal of the Second Amendment as the number of firearms banned would be so extensive it would have a similar result. It is important to note that most of the legally defined features of an assault weapon per proposed legislation contribute nothing to the lethality of the firearm. In addition, need is highly subjective and we don’t make things illegal simply based on a lack of need. However, if you require a defined need see the above. The right to bear arms is there to empower the people to fight back and you can be certain those you are fighting against won’t be so restricted.
Kristin Jones, universal background checks and the so-called gun show loophole refer to the same thing. They both refer to private sales which currently don’t require an FFL or NCIS check. Yes, most people support this, and specifically this, however it is not preventative and will only add an extra charge after the crime has been committed. It won’t stop a shooting. The reason I said specifically this when referring to the background checks is because many people like to confound reality by stating 97 percent of gun owners support “common sense gun laws.” No, 97 percent of gun owners support universal background checks but very few gun owners support an “assault weapon ban” or a magazine ban or the dozen or so other restrictions that are being proposed. Otherwise people wouldn’t be panic buying and joining the NRA in droves.
Jacob Leonard, Leesburg