It seems to me that if any hunter needs 50 rounds to kill his game, he should find another hobby or at least new glasses prescription.
We’ve had yet another mass shooting here in the USA, the second in a little over a week. The cry for gun control legislation has again reached a crescendo in Congress and in local communities. I am a gun owner and my job sometimes requires me to be armed. I have a permit to carry that firearm and I also have a federal permit to buy and sell antique weapons. As you can no doubt surmise, I have a collection of antique firearms as well as some firearms for my own self-defense.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that I am no fan of the National Rifle Association. I parted with them years ago when they refused to condemn the sale of Teflon coated bullets whose only function was to penetrate body armor warn by law enforcement officers. Subsequently they have also come out in favor of magazines that carry fifty rounds, although there is no earthly reason why anyone other than the military, needs that many rounds. It seems to me that if any hunter needs that many rounds to kill his game, he should find another hobby or at least new glasses prescription.
As a firearms owner, I can see absolutely no reason why someone purchasing a firearm should not need to wait for a thorough background check to eliminate those persons wanting to purchase a firearm who are underage, who have a history of domestic or other violence, a criminal record, or a mental instability. I also believe that we should restrict the sale of firearms to licensed dealers, not gun shows and swap meets. I have heard the argument that one should be able to purchase a firearm if one feels that one is in imminent danger from an ex-spouse or anyone else. Perhaps the way to deal with these rare cases might be to grant a waiver of waiting time if the purchaser can produce a restraining order from the local court.
I am not so naïve as to believe that any legislation which tightens background checks and other measures will stop gun violence, any more than any legislation will stop all drunk drivers. However, I do think that we can make progress in limiting the incidence of murders of a massive or individual variety,
I would be perfectly content to never have to have a weapon to safeguard my person, my house, or my loved ones. However, I have yet to hear a cogent argument that says that anyone bent on causing me harm, or of depriving me of property, will also give up all of his or her guns and give up such felonious acts. Until such a time as that occurs, I will continue to arm myself for self-defense and at the same time lobby for stricter gun control laws that restrict the easy availability of purchase by the criminal, the mentally incompetent, and the underage population.
Although, as I said previously, I am not a member or supporter of the NRA, I think that they missed a wonderful opportunity to have been a leading voice for responsible firearm ownership when they took such a hard line on some of the more sensible alternatives to letting anyone, at any time purchase any type of weapon.