I am writing in response to Richard Ruths letter (Herald, March 1), and as a veteran of many combat missions, way more than Rep. Mike McLachlan. I deeply respect McLachlans service, as most veterans do honor each other more than the public ever would, but Ruth and McLachlan are wrong about this issue.
I am not sure if either one of them have ever been in a firefight or lost brethren in combat, but I can assure you when it comes down to it, more ammunition in a magazine is better.
Twenty or 30 rounds are better than just 15 and are the standard size made by manufacturers in this country for assault weapons a term I hate because I prefer to call them defense weapons. Assault is a term used in war, and I do not believe we are there yet, but I could be wrong. I do not see the Chinese, Russians or Taliban limiting their people to 15 rounds. McLachlan and Ruth fail to realize the Second Amendment is not about hunting. They both fail to realize that rights set by the Constitution are not limited, and it is not a living document. Although I enjoy hunting, I do not hunt with a semi-automatic weapon. I use a bolt-action or single-shot rifle because they are more accurate, and I can take out a target more than a mile away with most of them.
However, if I ever have to defend myself from an enemy or multiple enemies, more is better, and I prefer an M-14 over any weapon out there with a 20-round magazine. If you are looking at experience as your motivating factor, ask an expert, not a politician.
I know most of you are saying that is never going to happen in the United States. Never say never. I thought I would never see a man on the moon, citizens vote for a president with unemployment more than 8 percent, a government that spends more than it takes in or our mainland attacked, but it happened.
Christopher M. Jones