Archived Story
Perspective needed on issue of guns
Published 10:06am Tuesday, January 8, 2013What will it take to make ordinary citizens remember the past and use logic to make decisions about law?
I want to preface this and say that in no way am I saying a tragedy was not committed in Connecticut; however, facts and rational heads need to be used to make decisions that affect the rest of the free world.
I have been hearing lately about how “assault weapons” are only used for killing people; or you can’t hunt with a semi-automatic weapon. These people obviously don’t know what they are talking about and haven’t spent time around firearms.
A recent letter writer said, “No one is talking about stopping gun sales; we just want the automatic weapons off the market and out of the hands of everyone but military and law enforcement.” However, earlier in the letter, the writer said, “The ordinary citizen does not need a semi-automatic rifle.”
Which are you targeting, automatic or semi-automatic? That being said, you cannot own a “fully automatic or automatic” weapon in any state without first applying for a license to own it. In Minnesota, any automatic weapon has to be on the “curios and relics” list to own it. Since about 1934, one verifiable murder was committed using a legally owned automatic weapon — that was by a police officer, too.
The AR-15 can be used to hunt just about any large animal on the face of the earth. I know most are going to scoff at that idea; however, the AR-15 can be chambered for a number of different caliber rounds. It is a hunting rifle and should not be touted as some evil killer.
But the biggest thing this boils down to for me is this. The Second Amendment was written to protect my rights to own firearms. I have heard the argument and I hear it now from everyone reading this, “Well that was written for people to own muskets.” Well, let me ask this: What weapons did the enemy have? Muskets.
The question that is missed here is not, why you should own a semi-automatic weapon; the question is, why can’t I? Less than a full percent of violent crimes are committed with the AR-15. Knee-jerk reactions to the actions of a mad man are not what make rational law. I agree that what happened to those children was horrible and they deserve every bit of compassion. But millions of Americans have lost their lives defending the American way of life. Should their sacrifice be in vain? Should the tyranny they fought to overthrow and the Constitution of the United States they established to keep it at bay be forgotten? Let’s remember that one of those most important of inalienable rights is the right of free speech; and where would that be with out the ability to protect it. History is full of nations that banned the ownership of guns and most of them were the enemy of freedom.
That’s what’s wrong with that.
David Miller
Albert Lea
When will you gun huggers get with the program? There have been almost 600 deaths by guns since 12/14/12, including Newtown. The vast majority of guns deaths occur in the home or by people who live or are visiting in the home of the the gun. The vast majority of these incidents are not by people who are mentally ill.
Even Gen. McChrystal, Ret., is calling for end to semi-automatic gun ownership by anyone but the military. Enough already!
Patti please elaborate what “the program” is and why we need to get with it.
You anti-gun nazi lovers need to get with the program—The National Academy Of Science reviewed hundreds of studys,and could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime or murder…..This is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and its my right to own firearms,and I will not let the actions of criminals take that away from me..
@Gus, when you say comments like maxi-lovers….it doesn’t give you much credibility. I believe in the second amendment, however we need to control more who is buying rapid fire weapons. Most of the mass murders have been done by the mentally unstable. It needs to be kept in check and anyone buying or letting access to these weapons should also be tried as if they themselves pulled the trigger. I wonder if our forefathers would have changed that amendment somewhat if they had known that such weapons of distraction would be invented.
That should say nazi, spell correction is a pain.
Winnnie I think you mean weapons of destruction, not distraction. Those are the guns with streamers in them instead of bullets, and I don’t think anyone is saying those need to be banned.