The author of a recent letter to this paper decried the lack of common sense of liberals in our locality, and then went on to articulate concisely the rules and regulations he adheres to in order to lawfully own a gun in the state of Massachusetts.
Since the gentleman did not complain about these regulations that have been set in place, I am presuming that he sees that they represent common sense. And so I would ask you sir, why not advocate Massachusetts guidance in these matters on a federal level?
I understand that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, and I respect that. (So is the freedom of speech and the press, or we wouldn’t be able to utilize this forum to debate)
However, some regulation is important, no? It’s a slippery slope, gun control, say some, but here on this mountaintop, I would argue that the slippery slope could slide dangerously in the opposite direction. For example, define arms. Should an American citizen be allowed to own a bazooka? An F-16? A rocket launcher? A tactical nuke?
Until evil doers come to the love necessary for a peaceful planet, I get the need to stay armed and watchful, yet with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, not to mention the CIA, the FBI, the state and local police, the Secret Service, the ATF, (am I forgetting anyone?) Oh yeah, and a well-armed populous. I am of the opinion that we are pretty safe from an invasion from a foreign power, so to regulate the ownership of arms in a sensible manner of less than stable members of the population does not seem, to me, nonsensical.
Michael D. Joyce
Wendell