In response to “Should the U.S. consider an assault rifle ban?” published on Oct. 3:
Mr. Simmens is entitled to his own biases, but not to his own “facts.” It would be nice, if hoplophobes such as he were required to understand the subject matter before confusing the masses with blather. An assault rifle is a select fire, medium-caliber weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder and using a detachable magazine. For those who came in late, that means that the weapon may be fired in fully automatic mode or in semi-auto (one shot for each press of the trigger) mode. Thus, a semi auto rifle is not an assault rifle. That’s a fact. No one who cannot distinguish the difference should be entitled to legislate for the rest of us.
Additionally, Mr. Simmens has either not read the Constitution or read it without understanding. “...shall not be infringed” presents an impassable bar to those who wish to confiscate and restrict. That these things happen bears evidence to the lip service we give the Second Amendment. To suggest that a weapons ban may coexist peacefully with the Constitution is facially nonsensical. A fully automatic weapon, or any other small arm, will lie on a table or stand in a corner indefinitely and never fire a shot. That requires human intervention. Perhaps Mr. Simmens would be better occupied finding a way to fix the few people who represent a danger, while leaving the vast majority of us alone.
Anyone who does not support the Second Amendment probably doesn’t support the others either. A patriot, in my world, is one who supports and defends the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights. No real American should have a problem with that. Those who do might be happier elsewhere.