Editor:
Thirty years ago, a little of what Tom Townley opined in his letter, “My definition of an assault weapon” (May 7) would have been true about so called “assault” rifles. But not today.
Had Mr. Townley stayed current in his firearms’ knowledge, he’d know they’re now well adapted for hunting everything from prairie dogs to deer to feral hogs.
He’d also know many are extremely accurate and used in long-range rifle competitions. One of the reasons they’re so popular is because of their versatility.
And, there’s certainly many types of bullets to choose from for many different uses. One can buy, or load for your own uses, fragile bullets (which disintegrate upon contact) to sturdy bullets designed for deep penetration with little or no deformation, and everything in between. One chooses the correct bullet, and rifle caliber, for the intended use.
His “assault” weapons definition is: guns with high capacity magazines designed only to kill people.
Using his definition, when the magazine release is engaged and the 20 round standard magazine in an AR-15 type rifle is dropped and quickly replaced by a 5 rounder, it’s no longer an “assault weapon”. See the futility in trying to define them?
“Difficult to conceal,” so they’re poor for personal protection? What about for use in home protection? Shotguns are hard to conceal, too, but they’re also great for home protection. Just ask their champion, VP Joe Biden.
In fact, just brandishing a firearm, not concealing or shooting one, often saves lives and property. Dangerous to use and hard to handle?
Actually, they’re much less dangerous to use and much easier to handle than the fine handguns Mr. Townley suggested made specifically for concealment.
Pistols are inherently much more dangerous than long-guns, and the smaller they are the more dangerous and difficult they are to control.
Townley is correct about people trying to change the Constitution for their own beliefs.
However, the only people trying to change the Second Amendment, our “right to keep and bear arms,” are those that want to define the arms they think people have the right to keep and bear.
In this case, only people like Townley, wanting to redefine “arms” to something they deem appropriate, are the ones trying to change the Constitution.
Rick Corbitt
Dolores
