No gun? You're a target
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
This is in response to the letter “Register assault guns” (Jan. 11). Is the writer pathetically uneducated?
The federal government defines an “assault” weapon as one that can go from semiautomatic to fully automatic with a switch selection. In 1986, “assault” weapons were banned from sale to the general public. Anybody who owns one must have a federal firearms license.
The Second Amendment doesn't state the right to bear “muskets.” It's the right to bear “arms.”
The Founding Fathers knew weaponry would change over time. Did Thomas Jefferson come back from the grave to tell the writer he would outlaw all automatic rifles and clips?
The writer asserts that owning a semiautomatic provides “false security.” I sleep better knowing I have guns to defend my house and family.
The writer has no way to protect his family and probably has a sign in his yard stating “This is a gun-free house.” If I were a criminal, he would be a target.
This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue; it's plain common sense. If you disagree, I hear Piers Morgan has an open spot next to him on his boat bound for that utopia called England.
Larry Bowman Jr.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ACA deserves support
- Hunt where the deer are
- Harming, not improving
- Handled it well
- Remember Pearl Harbor
- About time for Gilpin
- ObamaCare Obamination
- Maybe problem is kids
- Menace unaddressed
- Choosing judges II
- Choosing judges I