Types of weapons must be limited

OlympiaDecember 27, 2012 

Just prior to the events at Sandy Hook Elementary, I received one of those anonymous author emails stating that the United States attorney general was about to take away all Second Amendment rights with the stroke of a pen.

I’d like to ask the anonymous author if he or she really thinks that the writers of the Constitution, those bearers of flintlock, long-barrel rifles and flintlock pistols could have foreseen, not guns, but assault weapons available to every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a trigger finger?

And, why can anybody with an ATM card buy a bulletproof vest? Who needs this sort of stuff? What possible reason as a civilian could you have for a bulletproof vest and several hand guns/assault weapons capable of the carnage at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Clackamas Mall, etc? The old mantra that guns don’t kill people, people do, is absurd.

Assault weapons were intended for military use and that is where they should remain. So next time your kids wander off to school, head to a movie, go to the mall, ask yourself if it is time for some meaningful action on gun control. Please notice before you get your knickers in a knot that I did not say no guns. What I did say is there should be a limit on the type of weapons that are sold and the time has come for action.

The Olympian is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service