L/rain
36°
L/rain
Hi 56° | Lo 36°

Letter: More gun control unnecessary

For the Monitor

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

After nearly a century of wasting how many trillions of taxpayer dollars on the futility of alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs, now comes the latest, noble cry for gun control and an assault weapons ban.

Assault weapons only look scary; they are no more dangerous than hunting rifles fitted with high-capacity ammo magazines for target-shooting, which have always been illegal for hunting.

Guns number as many as cars, which cause significantly more death and damage. The truth is, the very next time you get behind the wheel, you could become the next killer, or killed, yourself. Gun assaults and homicides are significantly down over the past 40 years – except in Massachusetts which has the most stringent gun control law in the nation. However, in the rest of the country as a whole, present gun-control laws work just fine. Don’t take my word for it, look it up yourself.

The Second Amendment says that every citizen shall have “the right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed.” Over the past 10 years, the Supreme Court has twice upheld that right. Now to be really ridiculous, unless our nearly bankrupt government magically mints the $1 trillion coin I’ve read about before we go over the fiscal cliff, where would the limitless funds come from to finance the Gestapo-like, police measures necessary to even try to find all of the estimated 300 million guns in private hands if the gun-control advocates win the day? I guess we’d have to mint two $1 trillion coins instead.

BILL CHASE

Belmont

RabbitNH wrote:
08/02/2013

I do not think any gun ban will pass. I can think of 10 Democrats and Harry Reid himself who will not vote for a ban. Senators are up for relection in 2014 and they are from gun friendly states. Even Al Franken from Minn will not vote for a ban. NC has the Remington Headquarters, that means jobs are an issue. We will get stricter background checks out of this and that is all in my opinion.
RabbitNH wrote:
08/02/2013

There is also a huge disconnect with folks who live in urban areas vs those that live in rural areas. Urbanites have no concept of rural america. They are entrenched in their city lives. Have no clue how many folks live outside of cities. They see folks with guns as criminals because the folks who have guns in the cities are criminals. Pure ignorance. The educated elite city folk really do believe that they should be the ones to tell others how to live. I go to NYC often, and I can tell you it is such a joke the way they behave. I have had many come up to me and ask me where I got my outfit I am wearing. They never heard of LLBean. Next thing I know the fashion industry is claiming they invented flannel shirts and boots.
Hunter_Dan wrote:
09/02/2013

Excellent observation Rabbit, and based on looking over her shoulder at my wife's NYC facebook friends rantings - SPOT ON!
TCB wrote:
08/02/2013

1) Law-abiding citizens obey the laws -so the (volumes!) of current gun laws are more than enough. 2) Criminals and the criminally insane - always disregard guns laws. Thus more gun laws will be as effective as previous guns - not at all. There wasting more time/energy/money to do more of what hasn't worked is a merely an attempt to criminalize the people who are NOT the problem. I believe this arises from some skewed belief that law-abiding citizens are somehow more of a threat than burglars rapists and murderers. Where does that come from? What logic or data supports that assumption? Reflect for a moment and ask yourself is that one of your beliefs (don't have to tell anyone or admit it) and if yes, then ask yourself - does that make sense?
Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.