Focus on weapons of consequence

Can someone please explain to me what constitutes an assault weapon? Forty years ago I owned a .22-caliber “plinking” rifle. It was a semiautomatic, held about 15 rounds in a tube magazine, and had a 4-power scope. I often had 500 rounds of ammunition or more on hand. My buddy and I would spend an afternoon shooting at cans, bottles and other targets. Never once was it fired at or anywhere near the direction of another person.

Yet today would I be considered a terrorist with an “assault weapon”? More gun control laws. Do our legislators really think that passing more laws will have criminals lining up to turn in their illegal guns? How about enforcing the laws and penalties on the books now?

The flight attendants union became upset over the announcement that knives would soon be allowed on airplanes. Not big knives, or machetes, but up to 2.36 inches long. (Where did they come up with that length??) And golf clubs and mini baseball bats. Maybe it’s time to talk about the “inconvenient truth” of the hijackings almost 12 years ago. The terrorists succeeded because they had the element of surprise. Even armed with box cutters, does anyone think the rest of the passengers would have let them take over the plane if they knew what was going to happen? Flight 93 was evidence of that.

Cockpit doors are now armored and locked so no one can take over control of the plane. Can you see someone standing in the aisle waving a golf club or 2-inch knife and saying they are taking over the plane? The rest of the passengers would laugh at them right before tackling and pounding them senseless. Let the TSA concentrate on explosives or more serious weapons.

Pete Mayhew

Rolling Meadows