Mr. Blaufuss, in his letter to the editor that ran in the Sept. 14 edition of SV Weekend, argues that the term “assault rifle” is incorrect. Well, a rose by any other name is still a rose and the same goes for “assault rifle.” It is still designed to kill many people in the shortest amount of time.
I am not a gun owner. I will readily admit that they frighten me, but that doesn’t mean I advocate to remove all guns, even if that were a possibility. But even military experts, police officers and those who have guns and are not afraid of them say that “assault rifles” have no place on the streets. They are intended for warfare and that’s what we’ve had lately – warfare. I believe that the killing of a large number of innocent people is warfare or whatever you wish to call it. And that’s the reality we are living with now.
Some people interpret the Constitution to permit any kind of gun/rifle. The founding fathers could not, in their wildest dreams, have envisioned these killing machines. We have also been promised: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – something that has been denied to too many Americans in recent years.
Mr. Blaufuss ends his letter saying “the Second Amendment allows us the ability to defend ourselves from our own government.” I would suggest that our government has tanks and helicopters and I think they might be able to win a fight. Those of you old enough to remember the Holocaust in Germany saw the Jews being loaded onto cattle cars. The Nazis accomplished that with vicious attack dogs and more ammunition than a few citizens might have. I hope and pray we never have to test that theory.