Letter: Learning the Art of Compromise
To the Editor:
When I was a little kid, about 9 or 10, I used to go with my dad, with his .22 rifle, to a gravel pit out in the boonies, and we would have target practice on old beer cans we would set up on the banks of the pit. I am 87 now, and I can’t remember whether there was one bullet at a time in his gun or more, but I think one. It was kind of fun, and I have no interest now in seeing people have to give up learning how to handle guns, enjoy target practice, hunt birds or shoot skeet.
I have no stomach for hunting Bambi or Br’er Rabbit, but for those who do enjoy this sport, I certainly would hope that they had a few shots in their magazines in case one didn’t do the job and they had to put the animal out of its misery. But do they need 20 or 40 or more? If so, perhaps they should give up their guns and tackle another less demanding sport.
I’m sure there are a lot of nice men in the National Rifle Association, but for the life of me I can’t imagine why the big important ones who manage all their money can’t even consider a compromise. That’s how some things are handled. Don’t they realize that this Second Amendment they persistently and tediously dwell upon was passed long before this modern weaponry was available? Many things have changed over the years, and this should change. It would be a simple thing to do just by changing the wording of the NRA’s doctrine.
I was the mother of young children once, and I cannot imagine the heartache that will always be there for all the parents of all the young people killed recently in the various shootings. Maybe one way to help would be to license all gun holders and require renewal every year — the same as is done for us drivers of automobiles, also dangerous weapons.