Letter on firearms contradicts itself
The Aug. 26 letter by Mark Herbert Townsend requires a rebuttal.
First, it is historically factual that firearms have undergone improvements from the day they were invented.
Even the men who wrote our constitution saw significant changes while fighting for the freedom we now enjoy, which include among them freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms.
I have no doubt they realized that more improvements would come along in the future, and they wrote our wonderful constitution with that in mind.
I am typing this on my computer and not using a quill pen and ink, yet the very freedom they put on paper still applies.
Townsend speaks of semi-auto weapons in the same breath he uses to talk about “assault” weapons. If you study English, you will see the word assault is a verb and not an adjective, which means it’s an action and not a description.
Even the military does not have “assault” weapons. They have fully automatic ones and semi-automatic ones, and the average citizen cannot own an automatic weapon legally without a thorough background check by the FBI and Department of Alcohol and Firearms, plus paying a hefty fee to possess the license to own such a weapon.
And there must be a separate license for each such weapon.
Then Townsend contradicts himself by saying that no one should be able to defend themselves without permission from someone else, all the while saying he believes he should be allowed to own a gun.
Even the military, when engaged, does not need permission in every case to return fire against hostile actions.
His opinion is just that, but unfortunately it lacks common sense.
Frank J. Kauffman