Gun control?

Dear editor:

Why is it that every time there is a tragedy or emergency of some kind, the government wants to take something away from us? For example, the 9/11 terrorist attack took our personal liberty and gave us the indignities of the TSA at airports. Now, after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, the government wants to take away the right to own certain guns.

Many years ago when I was young and trusted my government, I thought the first ban on assault rifles wasn’t such a bad idea. After all, who really needs an assault rifle? Probably not many need or even want such a weapon, but that isn’t the point. Now that I am older and have a better idea of how the government works, I know that once they get a new tax or a cause they keep chipping away until they get what they really want.

Diane Feinstien reintroduced her updated Assault Weapon legislation. Her last “ban legislation” effort ran out in 2004. Then, even Clinton’s Justice Dept. admitted that the ban had little to no effect on crime. On the surface, the new version doesn’t sound too invasive. However, her visual aids showed only a portion of what she wants to ban, and the criteria used to determine what is to be banned is flawed. Her bill is more about the appearance of the weapon than its function.

The bill proposes universal background checks, and registration of all guns. Will our medical records be fair game? If so, who has access to those records?It gets worse. Here is what is going on in New York State right now. All firearms are to be registered. To do so, you fill out forms and pay a fee. Every year there after, you pay a fee to renew that registration. Ah! Now you have really allowed the government’s foot in the door!

We are still not asking the right questions. We should ask, “Why are there so many angry young people?” The answer is the break-down of the American Family. Unengaged kids left to technology and their own devises become isolated. They create nothing, participate in nothing and feel nothing. If the government really wants to do something about the mass killings, the first thing they need to do is fund local entities to enforce dead-beat Dad laws and provide parenting classes for mothers and fathers as a requirement for welfare and other assistance. It is true that love can’t be legislated, but personal responsibility can and should be enforced. Welfare reform is a subject for another letter.

Joanne Oviatt