Letter: Guns, yes, but civilians just do not need assault weapons

Jan. 11 Page A-4: Begich “… has no interest in a ban on sales of assault weapons. …” Same page: column about militia leader Mr. Cox, who did, and clearly has a right to, own and bear assault weapons, as do you or I, because of the Second Amendment. On the opposite page was reported yet another school shooting.

Admittedly, this time the assailant used a shotgun; but we can imagine what would have been the outcome had he been armed with an assault weapon.

I do believe in firearm ownership; but do civilians need assault weapons? The Second Amendment was about protecting one’s property and, when necessary, to perform duties of a militia with muskets, single shot pistols, and rifles. Do we honestly believe they would have agreed to civilians carrying assault  weapons? The term assault weapon is implicit enough. Assault is considered a crime in every state of the union; so why allow weapons made expressly for that purpose? Yes, military and law enforcement may need that kind of fire-power. Not the civilian population.

— Delece K. Lennon