Too many assertions about guns lack logic

The editorial “Background checks” (Herald, Sept. 10), verifying that application of background checks to private gun sales can be an effective “barrier to inappropriate gun transfers,” cited the histrionic and paranoid contention among NRAers that these checks are a prologue to the omen coming on: a so-far covert government plan to “do away with gun ownership among any and all residents.” This fevered worry is yet another basis for the derogatory terms I have urged against NRAers. In all, I have summed up several NRA public expressions of protest against gun controls and have concluded that none of them are burdened with logical thrust.

As examples, here are some bird-brain statements from NRAers during the campaign to recall state Rep. Mike McLachlan. One contributor claimed to be more qualified than McLachlan because he had, as he said, “more combat experience.” Another contributor asserted special qualification to speak to gun control because he could, as he boasted, “regularly take out targets from more than a mile away.” Yet another felt that the Second Amendment gave her the “right to purchase any kind of gun I want.”

Letters and editorials in the gun magazines are even more psychologically suspect. One obsession I have noted in the gun publications concerns “carry and conceal” (an entitlement that is not granted by the Second Amendment.) I read one article after another to the effect: Practice! Practice! Practice! That is, perfect your conceal and your draw, so that you can shoot and kill if you feel the occasion warrants.

In response, I have to wonder about all this rehearsing for an event that is, statistically, highly unlikely to occur. I am 69 years old, have been back in civilian life for 46 years, and have never been in a situation that would have required me to shoot someone.

Thomas Wright

Aztec