LETTER: Adding gun laws is not the answer
To the Editor:
Why is it that whenever someone writes in favor of strict gun control laws (Neil Rotter in The Sanford Herald, 2-21-13), they always assume the criminals will abide by these laws?
My example is Chicago, which has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation, and the city is said to be the murder capital of our country. Maybe it's the people, rather than guns, jumping off the shelf and firing at will. Why don't we pass another law to prevent guns from doing this?
The massacre in Newtown, Conn., was horrible, but an unstable monster committed this crime with stolen firearms. We all condemn this type of violence, but a new gun control law will not stop a determined, deranged individual from performing these horrific acts. I wonder if Eric Holder, our Attorney General, did a thorough background check of the drug smugglers on the Mexican border supplied with hundreds of guns by his underlings during the “Fast and Furious “debacle. Oh, I forget, wasn't he protected by the president's “executive privilege” powers? I guess we will never know the truth about this because of the compliance by the liberal mainstream media.
Does anyone really think that a background check and 10-round capacity magazines are the only laws our present administration is seeking? This will just be the foot in the door for these gun grabbers.
Neil Rotter, per statements in his letter, has not fired a weapon since his ROTC days. Maybe he is not an expert after all. I don't claim to be an expert either, but I try not to interfere with a person's legal right to defend his family by whatever legal means available.
The mainstream media and their left-wing followers should not be allowed to determine what kind of firearm we should posses for our protection if they are legal. Most of these gun control pundits would not know the difference between a sling shot, a broom handle or a legally owned firearm.