This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
If lawmakers treated firearms
like automobiles...
From: John Kupski <[email protected]> Dear Sirs:
In your editorial of August 20th,
2001, entitled "A Gunshy Governor" you state, "The gun lobby
hates the comparison of guns with cars, perhaps because the analogy makes so
much sense."
On the contrary, if lawmakers
treated firearms like automobiles as you suggest, most of the so-called gun
lobby would enthusiastically support them. Despite the comparison you attempt to
make:
I do not need a drivers license to buy a car,
only to drive one on the public roads. I am not barred from purchasing an automobile
that some would deem "too powerful" such as a Corvette, Viper, or
even a Winston Cup stock car. I am not forced to wait fifteen days to pick
up my new vehicle, nor to pass a background check. I may buy as many cars as I want to, whenever
I want. I am not required to buy a new car from a
federally licensed dealer, or transfer a used one through such a dealer in the
event of a private sale. I am not required to display my drivers
license and be finger printed when purchasing gasoline. All of the above are the law in
the state of California when you replace the word "car" with
"firearm" (the last example currently limited to LA County) and yet
you still clamor for more "compromise" on "sensible gun
laws." Yet automobiles in the hands of the incompetent, the intoxicated,
and the deranged inflict far more monetary damage, injuries, and loss of life on
the community. Perhaps the LA times should stop beating the proverbial gun
control horse and push for more "car control!"
John M. Kupski To Get Your Letters Printed Here |
||||||||