In my last piece I quoted Barack Obama about exploring the diversity of American thought. Here’s an example.
Guns & Ammo is a commercial magazine; readers share a common interest in firearms. But beyond that there can be significant differences.
Take, for example, the letters section in the August 2017 issue. In a previous edition, Editor Eric Poole praised the Hearing Protection Act (which enables silencers and I oppose) as a victory. One reader replied:
“…the Hearing Protection Act is not a win. It is a diversion. The repeal of the unconstitutional (i.e. a tax on a civil right) National Firearms Act…of 1934 [which regulates machineguns and sawed off weapons] would be a win. (I am aware that the NFA was found constitutional by the Supreme Court, which was comprised of elitists.) The repeal of the also unconstitutional Gun Control Act…of 1968 [which regulates interstate commerce of firearms] and all its updates would be a win. The decommissioning of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives--a federal agency possessing a long history of deceit and corruption—would be a win. President Trump is president due in very large part to American gun owners, and he owes us a win.”
This reads like a stereotypical NRA appeal. Anything dealing with guns in any form is good. But then, three letters down there was this missive, from a resident of Texas. He is responding to an article touting an expensive night sight.
“I am 70 years old and have been shooting and hunting, both in competition and for meat, for a long, long time. I have never felt it necessary, or sporting, to shoot any animal in the dark. I can’t imagine spending $6,000 to $10,000 on [this sight]. Some people have more money than brains. Keep up the good work. At my age, I can use a good laugh now and then.”
America is a great and big country. Explore, listen, and argue for your position.