Pro-gun, anti-weapons of warfare

An open letter to U.S. Rep. Steve Stivers:

I am a hunter; I own guns. And I am a supporter of the Second Amendment. But the Dayton massacre focused my attention to the meaning of it. The right to bear arms, to me, is the right of citizens to protect the country from tyrants, and foreign and domestic terrorists.

According to newspaper reports, there was heavily trained and equipped police presence in the area. Seven officers engaged the shooter in 20 seconds, shooting more than 70 times. But in the 30 seconds the shooter had fired 41 times, killing 9 people.

I would guess that there were carry and conceal patrons in the area also. Did any of them fire? There are no reports of such action.

That leads me to the point: It is not the presence of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens that prevents carnage. But it is the availability of weapons of warfare in the hands of troubled citizens that leads us on and on to massacre after massacre.

The obvious answer is to remove weapons and accessories of war from public ownership. Not all carnage will be eliminated, but Dayton-like events of 30 second killing sprees will be. We hunters and sportsmen with sporting equipment will not be affected.

Mr. Stivers, I call upon you and all the Republican (I used to be one) legislators in Washington and Ohio to relegate weapons of warfare to battlefield soldiers. Enough is enough, too much already. I want to read your public statement in the news that you support such action. Otherwise, I assure you that I will do all in my power to vote you and the other wimps out in 2020.

I look forward to hearing from you about your stand on the situation. I look forward to meeting you at the Clinton County Corn Festival, without the fear.

Don Chafin