The Dec. 12 commentary by Tom Diaz, which urged Congress to further restrict semiautomatic firearms, was misleading. He criticized gun experts for claiming that there were no such things as civilian "assault weapons." As evidence, he cited advertisements that referred to certain guns as "assault weapons." The firearms industry has long used that term in advertisements to promote sales by making guns seem aggressive or tough in the same way the media have used the term to mislead the non-shooting public into thinking that this type of firearm was only good for attacking people and should be banned. Other sales points that Diaz criticized, like forward grips that help control recoil, are desirable attributes for any firearm.
Diaz then admitted that the scary-looking "assault weapons" function just like traditional-looking semiautomatic firearms and maintained that their ugly looks were part of a package of features designed to kill people. Diaz did not tell us how these unnamed features aided in killing people, although he continued to use questionable advertisements to support his arguments. He closed by dismissing the differences between fully automatic rifles and those that were available to civilians as a "red herring."
People who use sensationally written advertisements as the basis of their arguments and who call legitimate facts that do not fit their beliefs "red herrings" are not to be trusted or looked to for accurate information.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution according to Webster's dictionary:
"Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, it stated in part that any citizen has the right to keep and bear arms as long as that individual belongs to a recognized and regulated state militia."
I could not find anywhere this 2nd Amendment stating that citizens have the right to own or keep whatever arms felt necessary for self-protection.
ALVIN B. STOVER