The recent tragedy at the elementary school in Connecticut is beyond horrible and our hearts reach out to the families who lost their innocent children and friends.  Though I am not a supporter of guns and would never own one, I acknowledge that the U.S.  Constitutional gives us the legal right to 'bear arms' in this country but struggle with the interpretation of the law.

My family includes members who like to hunt but the animals they kill are always used for food.  I live in a large city and understand why some individuals who are at risk in high-crime areas may want a gun in their home for personal safety as long as they are licensed and well-trained.   What I don't understand is why anyone, other than military and police personnel,  would ever need an automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon!   Do you think the authors of the Constitution ever imagined the types of weapons that would replace muskets, bayonets and pistols?  Gun control does not necessarily mean NO guns, but it can provide an intelligent framework for insuring access to those who are trained properly and have appropriate reasons for ownership.

Tags: 

Comments

There's ample room to improve our gun control laws and better protect our citizens - and children - without infringing on the Second Amendment's intent (which wasn't to arm everyone to the teeth to resist government tyranny, as gun advocates wrongly state). The history books say otherwise - and we need to get a grip on this problem as a public health matter.

hi, i sell guns in uk, but here we dont have any military grade guns like you do in usa , like semi automatic or automatic assault rifles. why a normal person would need those?

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.