A commonsense approach to gun violence

Editor:

I write in regard to the article on the front page of the Jan. 19 Journal regarding the gun-control issue that faces us all. I am a grandmother so perhaps my views differ from those expressed due to my advanced years, but I am left with a great many questions and this article has only brought them to the forefront of my thoughts. First, let me say that I am in full support of the Second Amendment and the right of a person to bear arms. Secondly, let me say that I do not oppose anyone's right to own a gun. Now I come to the questions that bother me, and perhaps I will be enlightened more fully than the article was able to do.

1. Are the arms we have available now anywhere near what our forefathers could have imagined when they drafted the Second Amendment?

2. What reason could the average citizen have for owning an assault rifle which is capable of firing an untold number of bullets per second? I thought these rifles were designed to kill human beings?

3. What purpose is there in having clips and magazines which will hold an untold number of bullets? Weren't they also designed for killing human beings?

4. What is the reason to have armor-piercing bullets? Are they necessary to the hunter or sportsman or for self protection?

5. Did the tragedies in the Colorado theater and in the school in Connecticut and the backlash from those horrid events not increase the profits for those people who sell the weapons and for the people who produce them? A banner year for profits?

6. Lastly, is the leadership of the NRA focused on the rights of the American people to bear arms or the weapons manufacturers who provide so much financial support to their organization?

The plan put forth by Vice President Joe Biden seems to be, for the most part, a comprehensive, commonsense approach to the terrible violence problem that faces our citizens today.

Judy Brenholt

Dolores