I have enjoyed reading the various letters concerning our Second Amendment rights. I have to agree that “assault weapons” are not used to hunt. However, the Second Amendment doesn’t pertain to hunting, but to the citizens’ right to own firearms. It is assumed, because so-called assault weapons are generally used in mass shootings, terror attacks, etc., they should be outlawed or severely regulated. If we transfer that mindset to the First Amendment, whereas most of the mass shootings, terror attacks, etc., have involved extremist Muslims, it would seem logical to either outlaw the Muslim religion or severely regulate it. This would be contrary to the provisions sought in the First Amendment and not palatable to even the least logical person. Tinkering with our Bill of Rights allows for those same rights to be abrogated or even done away with. Where, logically, would you draw the line? As the old saying goes, “if it aint’t broke, don’t fix it.” The shootings that have occurred are committed by either criminals or terrorists, and not by the guns themselves. Lets find better ways to control the terrorists and criminals. Leave the Second Amendment alone.
Roger Jones, Eagle