Letter: Assault weapons ban should have remained

Sunday November 12, 2017

Editor:

In September 2004, Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. This was done in spite of overwhelming polls that showed the American people and even gun owners wanted the ban to remain in place. It was done for the benefit of the powerful National Rifle Association lobby and the gun manufacturers that control it.

I place the blood of everyone who was killed by assault rifles since then on the politicians who allowed the ban to expire. They are more concerned with getting re-elected than the safety of Americans.

There is no American who needs to own a military-style assault rifle. The purpose of such guns is to kill as many people as fast as possible. Add to this clips that can hold 50 or 100 rounds, and you have the nightmare we are experiencing today. Congress is considering easing restrictions on acquiring silencers for these weapons. Add that to the massacre that happened in Las Vegas and maybe we would be looking at hundreds killed and thousands wounded.

When I was on a ship in the Navy, all rifles, machine guns and pistols were locked up in the armory until needed. If the military thinks this is rational, why do we allow anyone to own them?

In Pennsylvania, you need 65 hours of on-the-road training and must pass tests to get a driver's license. At a gun show, anyone can buy an assault weapon from an unlicensed dealer with no questions or training necessary.


Kenneth Nein
Exeter Township

Assault weapons ban should have remained