The Herald of Everett, Washington
Customer service  |  Subscribe   |   Log in or sign up   |   Advertising information   |   Contact us
HeraldNet on Facebook HeraldNet on Twitter HeraldNet RSS feeds HeraldNet Pinterest HeraldNet Google Plus The Daily Herald on Linked In HeraldNet Youtube
HeraldNet Newsletters  Newsletters: Sign up  Green editions icon Green editions

Specifics needed to understand law

SHARE: facebook Twitter icon Linkedin icon Google+ icon Email icon |  PRINTER-FRIENDLY
Regarding the Dec. 22 letter, "Non-sporting types should be illegal": It is obvious that the writer knows absolutely nothing about guns except what she reads/hears from the media. She states, "I can see no reason for any civilian to have a semi-automatic weapon in their possession." While I believe she is referencing AR-style rifles based on her comments about the military, her statement clearly states that "no civilian should be allowed to possess a semi-automatic weapon" and that "her solution would be to make them illegal nationally except for military use." This would include most basic rifles including .22s which are used for basic target shooting, hunting rifles used to provide food on peoples tables, basic handguns as well as every single weapon owned and carried by our local police officers in their off hours.
Are you truly suggesting that our police officers should be disarmed? Or that they be made criminals since they are required to carry even when off duty? I do not want to live in a country that would disarm their own protection. By the way, it is already illegal to own/possess a military weapon (automatic weapons) without a proper government issued permit.
Bridgit Montgomery

More Letters Headlines


HeraldNet Headlines

Top stories and breaking news updates