12:00 PM EST, February 5, 2013
I'm a sportsman and a hunter. Locked securely in my gun safe are hunting firearms and accessories, but not those currently mentioned in the debate over restricting military "assault" weapons, large capacity magazines and certain handguns ("Chief calls for stricter gun laws," Jan. 31)
I sympathize with those who have lawfully obtained firearms and use them responsibly. My particular ox is not being gored — not yet. Given the horrific loss-of-life events that have recently transpired, I understand and sympathize with those who say something must be done. But what? I fully support universal background checks (although, admittedly, the criminal element won't apply) and mandatory sentences for those who commit crimes with a firearm. My concern is the restriction on as-yet-to-be defined selected types of firearms as is currently proposed by the Obama Administration and numerous governors around the country.
Certainly, our founding fathers never envisioned the firepower that modern technology has brought to our armaments. By the same token, they envisioned a government "by the people, for the people," not the "by the politicians, for the politicians" version that it seems to have devolved into. This is no more obvious than here in our "Free State" where our term-limited governor, pandering to the emotional current climate, is promoting the toughest gun laws of any state in the land in an effort to burnish his credentials as a viable candidate for higher office.
What I fear, and I know I am far from alone, is that these proposed gun controls are but the "camel's nose under the tent." I just don't trust that some influential members of our politically driven government won't stop here but will continue to restrict our access to any firearm and our lawful use for protection and sport. The "slippery slope" lies just ahead.
Richard McLean, Manchester
Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun