|
| | | | |
|
|
Re: Gun Laws and Family Ties
Re: http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/nov01/guns-edit111101.asp
[Note: letters to the editor are submitted through the website, not via e-mail.
Hense, no header. -author]
In the Nov 12 editorial entitled "Gun laws and Family Ties" a couple
things were said that need to be addressed, lest the public be misinformed.
"Since taking force, the Brady Law has stopped the sale of guns to 600,000
people." Many people who are eligible to buy guns are stopped temporarily
or mistakenly, due to having a similar name or identifying characteristic to
someone who is ineligible. Attempting to buy a gun while not eligible is a crime.
So, rather than simply regurgitating Clinton's claim that so many people were
stopped by the Brady bill, why doesn't someone report on how many criminal prosecutions
there were in response to purchase attempts by ineligible people? Is it because
the law doesn't look nearly as effective?
The editorial also endorsed "a requirement that guns be registered, as
are cars, when they trade ownership. Registration would help in keeping guns
out of the wrong hands." This is where alarm bells start to go off for
us gun owners. First, please note that arms are constitutionally protected,
cars are not. More to the point, everywhere where registration has been implemented,
including in this country, it has been followed by confiscation. Perhaps this
would make the gun control crowd smile, but if the Constitution means anything,
the hazards of registration far outweigh any benefits (contrary to the writer's
opinion, registration would not keep guns out of the wrong people's hands, and
it wouldn't do much to help trace them either, since the vast majority of those
guns would be stolen, or never registered to begin with).
Sincerely,
Chris Brose
[email protected]
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.
|
|
|
