I hope the writer of "Assault rifles not needed" never decides to run for office.
We have enough of that kind of thinking already in office and making our decisions for us.
First off, he states we Americans are afraid. He's right, we're deathly afraid - of our present government and administration.
Jefferson told us if you fear your government, you're in trouble. Your government should fear you. And the writer should study his playbook a little better.
He states most gun owners are white suburban and rural homeowners, and that's probably correct. In the cities, guns are forbidden yet crime abounds.
Our forefathers wrote the Second Amendment for one reason and one reason only-so we could defend ourselves, if need be, from the criminal element but more particularly from a tyrannical government.
The single-shot muzzleloader was the assault rifle of its time. Our forefathers intended for us to be armed with whatever was needed to protect ourselves from whoever was intent on taking our freedoms from us. Be it a robber or a mugger - or a government.
He states, "Guns make cowards brave" and in some cases, that may be right. But much more often, you'll find that guns make criminals brave.
Cases in point: all the mass murders in the last decade. But good people with guns turn criminals into cowards. And it was good people with guns that ended every one of these mass murders.
The media is all over each and every killing of this type but blatantly and intentionally ignores cases where guns were used to prevent bad situations from happening or ended them once they had begun.
If both sides were reported evenly and fairly, the public would be aware of the fact that guns save many more lives than they take.
Those who carry guns do so, not because they're looking for a fight, but because they're looking to be left alone.
The writer states he can run from a knife but not from a gun. Why should you have to run from a knife?
If you were armed, you wouldn't have to. And what if you had no gun and the knife wielder was faster than you or stronger than you? Or if you were handicapped or old?
Then you're at the mercy of the knife wielder, or club wielder, or anyone else that's physically superior to you. The presence of a protective weapon changes that.
People who argue for the banning of guns are asking for automatic rule by the young, the strong and the many - and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
When you're armed, you no longer have to cower when you're old or slow or incapacitated.
As Samuel Colt said of the peacemaker, it's the Great Equalizer. And wasn't equality exactly what that writer wanted in the first place?