Bill Ames: Sick of pro-gun lobby and its ‘demeaning’ comments
To the editor:
OK, I’ve had it with the pro-gun lobby. The article that appeared in the Gazette April 11 titled, “Gun-control measure hit from both sides locally” did it for me.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those Americans who does not own a gun and I have absolutely no interest in getting one. Indeed, I have used a gun on only a few occasions such as when I was in basic training in 1954. During basic training, the guns were kept under lock and key in our barracks. The weapons were used only as a part of our training. For example, we were not allowed to take a weapon for protection when we went on leave. All guns were very carefully taken care of.
But I don’t feel that my lack of knowledge of firearms in any way restricts me from becoming involved in the debate over control. I know that the Second Amendment reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
I understand this to mean that since the people were called to serve in the militia in time of emergency, they should bring their weapons when called to action.
When I was called into service during the Korean war, I wasn’t expected to bring weapons with me. The Army provided the weapons and we were trained in their use.
Perhaps we need to add to our gun control laws that if a person buys an assault weapon it is assumed that that person has joined the militia and will serve when called. I
have other suggestions for new laws but won’t go into them here.
The pro-gun addicts seem to say that there is no way to prevent a Sandy Hook massacre.
Perhaps not, but banning the sale of assault weapons is a good place to start and those already in the hands of gun addicts can keep them but the use of these weapons must be severely limited.
Now let the debate begin and let’s not have demeaning comments from the pro-gun addicts.