October 25, 2016 at 5:02 p.m.
More guns, to what end?
Letters to the Editor
To the editor:
This is in response to Steve Erwin’s Oct. 20 letter to the editor in which he indicates that Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh are anti-gun.
I’m scratching my head Mr. Erwin. What is your premise, other than that two Democratic candidates, on the ballot this year, don’t support your views?
Are you proposing that, like the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers, that anyone should be able to possess any gun they manufacture, with no limit to the size of magazine for any arm? That sounds like you’re saying you’d like for the ban on any gun to be removed, allowing for more guns on our streets, more automatic and semi-automatic guns on our streets.
We’ve seen a rise in gun violence in America. More guns and larger clips and semi-automatic and automatic guns would cause many more deaths than we’ve seen. It seems as though the only way to prevent such occurrences would require much more police officers, or even the National Guard on the streets to prevent such violence. There, so it seems, would be an enormous chance for open warfare on the streets.
It doesn’t seem to me that this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind with the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution 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.”
There are small bands of people in most every state that call themselves militias, but our legally accepted militia is the National Guard.
In the days of our Founding Fathers, the need for people to keep and bear arms was mainly for hunting (a necessity for many) and for dueling (before it was made illegal). It seems to me that many of the guns that Mr. Erwin wants legal would not be sensible for hunting, unless the hunter was an extremely poor shot.
So, I ask Mr. Erwin, what is the need for many of the guns many would like to amass?
Guns and the shooting of them are not a game, and should never be taken lightly.
I’m puzzled, sir, does it make one feel more virile shooting an automatic weapon?
Not shooting any gun doesn’t make me feel less of a man/less of a person.
Daniel E. Chase
Portland
This is in response to Steve Erwin’s Oct. 20 letter to the editor in which he indicates that Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh are anti-gun.
I’m scratching my head Mr. Erwin. What is your premise, other than that two Democratic candidates, on the ballot this year, don’t support your views?
Are you proposing that, like the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers, that anyone should be able to possess any gun they manufacture, with no limit to the size of magazine for any arm? That sounds like you’re saying you’d like for the ban on any gun to be removed, allowing for more guns on our streets, more automatic and semi-automatic guns on our streets.
We’ve seen a rise in gun violence in America. More guns and larger clips and semi-automatic and automatic guns would cause many more deaths than we’ve seen. It seems as though the only way to prevent such occurrences would require much more police officers, or even the National Guard on the streets to prevent such violence. There, so it seems, would be an enormous chance for open warfare on the streets.
It doesn’t seem to me that this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind with the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution 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.”
There are small bands of people in most every state that call themselves militias, but our legally accepted militia is the National Guard.
In the days of our Founding Fathers, the need for people to keep and bear arms was mainly for hunting (a necessity for many) and for dueling (before it was made illegal). It seems to me that many of the guns that Mr. Erwin wants legal would not be sensible for hunting, unless the hunter was an extremely poor shot.
So, I ask Mr. Erwin, what is the need for many of the guns many would like to amass?
Guns and the shooting of them are not a game, and should never be taken lightly.
I’m puzzled, sir, does it make one feel more virile shooting an automatic weapon?
Not shooting any gun doesn’t make me feel less of a man/less of a person.
Daniel E. Chase
Portland
Top Stories
9/11 NEVER FORGET Mobile Exhibit
Chartwells marketing
September 17, 2024 7:36 a.m.
Events
250 X 250 AD