Letter: Misleading language from anti-gun crowd
The new term trotted out by the anti-gun crowd – “military-style weapons” – has me shaking my head and wondering. What in the world are they talking about?
Any weapon used in a combat situation is a military-style weapon. This clever use of the English language is perfect to sway people. Just because a gun looks like a one you might have seen in movies like Rambo doesn’t mean it is any more lethal than a hunting gun.
Shotguns can put as may as 17 pellets the size of a .32-caliber bullet in the air with one shot. A typical revolver takes seconds to reload with a speed loader.
Since when does the legislative branch legislate “style”? To me, this is like saying you can’t own a car that looks too fast. Style is subjective.
Another argument by the anti-gun crowd is this: “You don’t need an ‘assault weapon’ to hunt deer.” First, the Second Amendment says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It does not say “the right to hunt deer.” The word “militia” implies using weapons that would be useful in combat. Second, where does the government get off telling me what I do or do not need? In a free society, I’m sorry, you can’t tell me what I do or do not need.
Would you rather invade a house in Massachusetts where most people are unarmed, or in New Hampshire where someone might possess a gun, (one useful in a combat situation) whether or not you choose to call it “military style”?