Is guns legislation reasonable?
If my father’s oldest brother, my Uncle Bob, were alive today, I believe I know what he would say about the Democratic legislation crafted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.
As I’ve written before, Uncle Bob was an early advocate of gun rights. He came to mind last Sunday as I read a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel column by James E. Causey about “preppers” and a West Allis store called The Bunker where survivalist types stock up in case Armageddon arrives. If he were alive today, I think Uncle Bob would enjoy spending a few of his Social Security dollars at that store. I wonder if any of my readers have shopped there. How many of you have purchased survivalist gear?
Gun-rights advocates suggest the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was crafted not just to ensure personal protection but to arm the citizenry in case weapons are needed to protect the people from a government takeover such as Hitler in Europe. In a column we’ll be printing in Saturday’s Gazette, Janesville’s Earl Arrowood, Wisconsin organizer of Guns Across America, suggests as much.
Feinstein’s legislation was written in response to the school massacre in Newtown, Conn. According to The Associated Press, it would cover rifles, pistols and handguns with one of any military-style features such as detachable stock, pistol grips or grenade launchers. It also bans 157 specific firearms, while excluding 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns. And it bans magazines that accept more than 10 rounds.
Feinstein aimed to improve on the assault weapons ban she authored that expired in 2004, when Congress failed to renew it under National Rifle Association pressure.
Does this legislation sound reasonable, or does it shoot too high?