Recently, I've been reading letters to the editor regarding the new gun-control legislation in this state and the nation in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., massacre.
Truly, it was the act of a sick young adult who committed two felonious acts prior to committing his final act of violence. This should not become a case to punish law-abiding citizens.
A couple of the letters jumped off the pages, though; one by Linda Sweet and an earlier letter by A.J. Zambella.
The writers spout the standard gun-control narrative, "need."
Sweet - "How many guns do you need?"
Answer: It depends on the shooting sports the gun owner enjoys. Turkey, one firearm; deer, another; elk, a third; paper targets, several; for home defense, I can list 30.
Mr. Zambella states as fact, as he sees it: "No one needs to posses any of the aforementioned weaponry except police and the military."
I remind the writer of two things: The military doesn't use the AR-15 and the Second Amendment wasn't written to empower the police or military. It was to equalize the balance of power between the "people" and those who have the weight of "authority."
Government has no authority above that "given" by consent of the governed.
He goes further: "However, the integrity of this amendment has been compromised time and time again. At its conception, assault weapons, 'mega' round magazines, etc., were implausible. It is crucial to constantly acclimate to the changing world."
I remind Mr. Zambella at the time of the writing of the First Amendment, the Internet, cell phones, TV and radio news, the CB, hell, two tin cans with string, were all implausible.
Does he give up his First Amendment rights because in the 18th century it was "implausible" to type on the Internet? Of course not.
A reminder to the authors, per the FBI, blunt objects kill more people per year than AR-15s. A prehistoric weapon - a club, for example - is more widely used to kill than the weapon at Newtown.