Prohibiting purchase of assault weapons would be a good start, but prohibiting possession would still be needed, and desirable. “A gun is a tool” says Wayne LaPierre. Hand grenades and rocket propelled grenades are also tools, but as much as I like my neighbors I don’t want them to have such tools in their homes.
The Second Amendment doesn’t authorize the possession of machine guns, tanks, flame throwers, nuclear bombs or other such tools. Neither does it authorize possession of assault weapons.
Our experience has shown that assault weapons are the tool of choice of mass murderers. Getting rid of them would not be the cure for our national madness, but it would be a welcome part of a cure. Speed limits on our highways do not cure automotive slaughter, but not even the National Rifle Association would use that as an argument for eliminating speed limits. I hope.
JOEL SHIMBERG
Johnson City
bakerjw writes:
January 18, 2013
12:42 PM
The second amendment doesn't authorize anything. All it does is enumerate the inalienable right of the people to provide for their own offense against any form of aggression or oppression. While tanks, nuclear bombs, etc... make for a cute letter to the paper, the reference to arms in the 2nd amendment refers to shoulder fired weapons to allow the people to have weapons equal to their oppressors. Go read some of the writings of the founding father and it becomes very clear.
NiteRider writes:
January 18, 2013
12:38 PM
Define "assault weapon". The responsibility for mass murders resides with the person who pulls the trigger. Or drives a car into a group of people. Or blows up a building. Banning these guns will not stop sinister acts of evil against others.
MountainBoomer writes:
January 25, 2013
8:13 AM
your right, bakerjw, the 2nd amendment only gives us the right to own muskets.