Semi-automatic weapons shouldn’t be so readily available

Dear Editor,

I have some thoughts about our gun laws in this country. First, the Constitution was thought of and written over 300 years ago. Guns then were very different from today. A musket had to be reloaded by pouring gun powder and bullets into the barrel and rammed down before shooting. Plus, they were not very accurate. A rifle at that time took two or three minutes to reload and then could shoot one at a time. Can you imagine going into a super market, or school, or church, and shooting several people with these types of firearms? They didn’t have semi-automatic rifles when the Constitution was written.

The right to carry and bear arms was written at a time when America was a new nation and had just broken away from England. The fear was that the British might still try to wrest control back from this new nation. The forefathers felt a grassroots militia could then defend the this country. I don’t think we need to defend ourselves from another nation trying to overtake us. If one was, I seriously doubt they would use repeating pistols or semi-automatic guns. More likely bombs and long-distance missiles.

I do believe in guns and shotguns to be used in hunting and self-defense. I don’t believe in using semi-automatic rifles to shoot animals for food. Not very sportsmanlike. These kinds of guns are used to kill people in war situations. We’re not at war in this country at this moment.

Another thought: I don’t believe any 18-year-old is old enough or mature enough to be able to buy a semi-automatic weapon. I also believe that there should be background checks for anyone trying to buy a gun. They should not be so readily available to just anyone.

I pray that God in His infinite wisdom would instill common sense into our politicians before more people and children die. It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to get out and vote for more sensible people in our government.

Lorna Schimmrich

High Falls, N.Y.