Dear Editor:
In light of the “2nd Amendment sanctuary cities” movement, a few observations from what I hope is the sensible center.
Why would any law-abiding responsible gun owner or would-be owner feel impacted by universal background checks? The 2nd amendment starts with the words “a well-regulated militia.” Shouldn’t that imply that there are certain people who should not be gun owners? The background checks need to incorporate mental health data (psych practitioners already have certain mandated reporting requirements). Also, the background check needs to incorporate domestic violence perps and cyber-bullies and cyber-stalkers, for the sake of too many women victims. Lastly, why should someone on the “no fly” list be able to get a gun?
Why would any law-abiding gun-owner be impacted by a ban on mega-magazines? If you need more than 10 rounds at a time to kill a deer you shouldn’t be hunting. You don’t use a mega magazine for target shooting competition nor is it a viable device for indoor home security.
Assault weapons (the AR-15 and AK-47) present a more serious problem. People have bought them legally, they should not be confiscated. Yet the ongoing proliferation of these battlefield weapons is an increasing problem, especially for our brave law-enforcement personnel who often find themselves out-gunned. People need to come out of their tribal corners and deal seriously with this without the accompanying rhetoric.
There are no permanent and perfect solutions, but in light of all the recent mass-shootings, shouldn’t we use all potential methodology to tip the scales in favor of a less violent society?
R.L. Saunders
Chincoteague
