Takes issue with two recent rebutal letters

To the editor:

In response to Mr. Sellers’ and Mr. Deibert’s letters concerning my opinion on assault-type rifles.

First: Mr Sellers. You give your history of use with various types of firearms. It is very impressive. Thank you for serving our country in the armed service. Judging from your age, you probably served in the Vietnam War. So, you are very familiar with the types of wounds incurred from the .223 rifle, as well as from the 7.62 NATO round. From the most severe wounds you’ve seen, multiply that by two or three times in the severity department, and you have the result of wounds by the sporting bullets we are all familiar with. The wounds you’ve seen were from the military bullet, a steel-jacket round. It does not mushroom as our sporting round does. Big, big difference. So, I suggest you take that knowledge and put it to the appearance of a 6-year-old body at the school in Connecticut with 11 bullet wounds. Then, and only then, will you realize the damage it does. There simply is no place in the civilian life for this weapon of war, none.

Second. You call me a heartless hypocrite. You say I “get all bent out of shape” because 26 people were killed at Sandy Hook School. But somehow seem to imply that I say it’s alright to abort “nearly 50 million” who have been killed already. Mr. Sellers, I take issue with your assumption. You don’t know me at all. To my knowledge, you’ve never met me. I certainly don’t know you. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided it may be. But, for your information sir, I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-life. I only say that to prevent a bad seed you’ve sown, from growing.

In my opinion, I said that a couple things must be adhered to, in order to have an honest discussion. We must be honest, and must be on point. You sir, have severely missed on both points. Just as a point for you Mr Sellers: Study the definition of “regulated” and “militia” – you may be surprised at the definition of both.

Mr. Deibert: You too are being dishonest here. You stray from the point too. First: You said that I said all NRA members are idiots. That is a lie, an outright lie, Mr. Deibert. Stick to the truth, if you cannot then, please stay away from the conversation completely. I said, “such as the NRA members who are totally upset for the foreseeable loss of revenue, would argue that the founding fathers were looking to protect your rights to own and use an automatic rifle.” That is exactly what I said. I stand by that statement. Second: I am very familiar with the acts of your German leader of the WWII era. I really do not need a history lesson from you. I prefer to read the facts for myself, which I do as a regular habit. I don’t just spout a bunch of rhetoric to try to impress somebody. Which brings me to your diatribe about the D.C. area compared to the Arlington area. While what you said is true, what does it have to do with anything I’ve been talking about? Nothing. I am well aware, as are many others, that a gun-free zone is a green flag for criminals. Your statement is totally worthless, in this venue. The same can be applied to the statement about total gun confiscation. Mr. Deibert, stick to the point here.

For your information Mr. Deibert, I do give thanks for the Second Amendment. The entirety of the amendments, as well. Maybe just a bit more than you could know.

No one that lives at my house is trying to reinvent the wheel. Catchy phrase, Mr. Deibert. Perhaps in the future, we will be discussing the wheel so save your thoughts. But, above all, stick to the point.

Dick Rhoades