Ban on ‘assault weapons’ no safety measure

I’m compelled to respond to your editorial, “The duty to combat assault weapons” (July 14). By ignorance, dishonesty or journalistic arrogance you would ban so-called assault weapons without even providing your readers a coherent definition. Your use of a term that properly defines a military-style fully automatic weapon that has been banned to the public since 1934 to refer to commonly-owned guns used for sporting purposes and home defense by millions of Americans is at least disingenuous or grossly uninformed. Your writing only serves to inflame, emotionalize and misinform people who don’t understand the issue, while pandering to the “liberal” politicians who would diminish our freedom for their own political gain.

I’ve followed these municipal “assault weapons bans” and know that the primary target is the AR-15 rifle, “America’s rifle,” owned by millions of law-abiding people and rarely used by criminals. If these in fact are “designed to kill with alarming efficiency” (your words), why are they issued to local police officers? You can’t have it both ways: If the police need them, then why shouldn’t civilians have them to protect lives before the police arrive? Please explain.

I submit that “assault weapons” are benign absent an abuser who otherwise would murder with another at-hand inanimate object. The only assault present is on our intelligence and freedom by newspaper editors beholden to misguided or evil people who would affect civilian disarmament. It seems like the Daily Herald is comparing notes with the News-Sun and other major papers, as you are all parroting the same stuff that serves to restrict the innocent while ignoring the criminals. Do you publish to promote politicians, who thrive on enacting new limitations to America’s freedom, or to serve your readers and preserve our right to be free from artificial, ineffective and foolish “safety” measures?

Glenn Garamoni

Ivanhoe