GloucesterTimes.com, Gloucester, MA

Letters/My View

January 19, 2013

Letter: Lawmakers should reject gun law changes

To the editor:

This is a copy of a letter I have sent to our state legislative representatives:

I am writing to let you know I am opposed to the legislation filed by our governor regarding gun control.

The state of Massachusetts already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. As a legal and responsible gun owner, I can’t help but feel I and others are being punished for the acts of those who have no respect for the law or the lives of others.

What we really need is criminal control. Time after time we read and hear of convicted felons, using guns to commit violent crimes, even after being convicted of multiple felonies, yet they still walk our streets and continue to prey on good citizens.

Commerce and trade are the foundations to a thriving and prosperous people. Limiting the sale of guns to one per month really is a pointless attempt to restrict free trade. After all, most of us can only afford to have so many firearms in our possession and if we choose to purchase them at one time that right should be unencumbered not restricted due to the acts of criminals or those with mental health problems.

Yes, we have a problem with mental health issues regarding firearms. And that problem is always going to exist regardless of all the rules and regulations printed on official documents of the state and federal government. A clever and determined person, with mental health issues, who is determined to do harm will always find a way to carry out acts of pure evil. And when this happens it seems the emphasis is to further restrict the rights and privileges of law abiding citizens who had no part of the wrong doing.

Thousands of people in this state enjoy going to an indoor or outdoor range and punching holes in paper targets, myself included. Some shoot handguns and some rifles. Why is an AR15 or similar firearm in the hands of a military person called a combat rifle, in the hands of a police officer called a patrol rifle, but in the hands of a civilian called an assault weapon? Seems the civilian term is a sinister indication of intent to assault. Same gun, different description.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Letters/My View

NDN Video
Jenny McCarthy Engaged to "New Kid" Kate and Will Land in Oz Boston Bomb Scare Defendant Appears in Court Bay Area Teen Gets Prom Date With Help From 'Breaking Bad' Star Behind The Tanlines Jersey Strong Part 1 WATCH: Women Fight To Marry Prince Harry! O’Reilly Launches Preemptive Strike Against CBS Pixar Unveils Easter Eggs From its Biggest Movies Baby Sloths Squeak for Their Cuddle Partners in Adorable Video Miley Cyrus Hospitalized After Severe Reaction To Medicine Raw: Ferry Sinks Off South Korean Coast Toddler climbs into vending machine 8-year-old Boy Gets His Wish: Fly Like Iron Man Much-Anticipated 'Gone Girl' Trailer Finally Debuts! (VIDEO) Dog and Toddler Wear Matching Outfits in Adorable Photo Series VP Biden: "World witnesses ordinary citizens doing extraordinary things" It's Official! Michael Strahan Joins "GMA" Blood Moon Time-lapse Actress Lake Bell Goes Topless The Five Weirdest Local Taxes in America