In response to Victoria Therriault’s Jan. 23 letter [“Today, only two reasons for guns”], and many other opinions, there isn’t much of a reason for anyone to own an “assault weapon.”
That term for a semi-automatic rifle was made up in the 1980s. Like a double-action revolver, these guns fire one round for each pull of the trigger; they’re not machine guns.
Most people use their own standards for a need to apply to everyone. You wouldn’t restrict a soldier to a 10-round magazine because armed people are trying to kill him. Yet, that’s exactly what you’re suggesting for ordinary citizens when they’re facing armed criminals trying to kill them.
Maybe you don’t have a “need” for one, but a federal law will affect everyone. (Rosa Parks didn’t have a need to sit in the front of the bus, but then, rights aren’t based on need.)
Remember the L.A. riots, with mobs of people looting and killing? Remember the Katrina disaster, again with mobs looting and killing? YouTube shows people who faced looters driving them away because of their superior weapons (later illegally confiscated by police). There’s also video of the National Guard lamenting they might have to shoot our own citizens. (So much for checks and balances, and tyrannical government.)
Relatives living in Texas have had two incidents of people trespassing. The last time, the intruders were run off by an armed 14-year-old protecting his sisters. Luckily those intruders weren’t armed with better weapons.
Please don’t confuse your needs with those of everyone. Don’t confuse a need with a right.
Representatives are trying to pass “sensible” gun laws by ramming them through or attaching them to other bills, with no input from citizens; then, trying to cover as many guns (including pistols) as possible, whether considered an assault weapon or not.
No law should be passed like that.