In past, NRA didn't object to sensible restrictions

March 24, 2014 

When I was younger I loved to go hunting. I had several shotguns and rifles.

Kentucky and federal laws stated that I could not load more than three shells in my 20-gauge or 12-gauge shotguns to shoot a duck, rabbit, dove, quail, deer or other game.

There were other laws about the number of bullets or scatter shells allowed in guns in other states. Delaware, Maryland and many more have restrictions on the amount of ammunition allowed in a rifle or shotgun.

Many states have laws restricting hunting with pistols. Almost every state (and federal) has a law stating what you can and cannot hunt.

The NRA has never objected to any of these fair laws.

What has happened?

Some ill-advised people have secured assault rifles because our armed forces use them to kill as many enemies as possible, and now the NRA backs no restrictions and apparently does not care if mentally deranged people kill as many men, women and children as possible.

Our city, county, state and federal governments owe it to their constituents to pass laws making assault rifles with extended clips illegal, unlawful and unacceptable in our modern society.

If our present legislators can't do the job, let's get some in who can.

Wm. F. "Rusty" Russell


Bradenton Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service