I am a gun owner. I have had several guns during my life. Many of my friends have guns. Some of them have a large number of guns of varying types. I am not a hunter, but I am all in favor of hunting. Since we have eliminated most of the predators in this part of Maine, hunting is the only way to control population growth of several species of wild animals.
My friends who own guns do not own assault weapons or guns with large magazines. Why would they? There is no use for such weapons except to kill people. Why would any well-adjusted person want a weapon designed only to kill people?
Favoring limiting certain types of guns to responsible people in no way suggests taking all guns away. The argument is absurd. Only the lunatic fringe would advocate allowing unstable individuals to own assault weapons or any weapons for that matter. If there is a small imposition on those people who sell guns, whether at gun shows or gun stores, and that imposition saves dozens of lives, why would there be an argument? What possible reason is there for the NRA to be so rigid on this matter? I see no slippery slope. I would object if the government were to take my gun away, but I don’t see the Obama Administration suggesting such a thing. The country is literally crying out for reasonable gun control laws.
Bart Chapin,
Arrowsic
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
