Whoa!! For a minute I thought I was reading an article in the New York Times. Dennis Streets’ guest column in the News + Record (“Next national emblem?”, April 13-19) reads like most so-called leftist media columnists. He seemed to be looking for a story with a problem. I mean, aren’t all shooting deaths tragic? Losing a loved one to a homicide would be terrible whether by shooting, bludgeoning, stabbing, or whatever. But to scrape the bottom of the barrel by using his example of several obscure congressmen supporting a national gun emblem is a real push.
First of all, lets understand what an AR-15 is … it is not a lot different than my Winchester semi-automatic 22 rifle. It shoots a .223 cartridge vs. my .22 cartridge. It, like my .22, requires pulling the trigger with each shot (not a machine gun) and holds a specific number of cartridges like my 15-cartridge Winchester. The AR designation, in fact, does not stand for “assault rifle” but for the manufacturer, the Armalite Company. It started with the AR-5, a bolt-action 22, in the 1950s. Over time the design took on a really “bad” look. One might compare it to Chevrolet building a Cavalier versus a Corvette. Thus, the pit-bull look: it’s meant to look aggressive and mean.
But it can kill. All guns, with rare exception, kill.
My problem is that Mr. Streets’ column is geared towards an argument that only Republican wild-eyed politicians support guns, i.e., the Second Amendment. I think he knows, as do most of us, that this issue has been debated for at least 30 years. Like other issues including the border, abortion, crime, and economy, Democrats have been at various times a part, if not majority, of the decision makers.
Democrats, Mr. Streets, are as much a part of the problem as any other party. You need to get a new perspective on the issue and start looking to the left for their participation and shortcomings that you identify as solely Republican.
Philip H. Johnson