Perhaps the law gives us the "right" to own assault weapons, perhaps not. We are hearing both sides. What we are not hearing is what we should be willing to sacrifice for the general good.
Law-abiding citizens don't need assault weapons to defend themselves. A nice shotgun would suffice. The common-sense argument for making them illegal and unattainable is that lunatics couldn't abuse them.
We all would benefit by giving up some of the things we are entitled to but are not good for us, unhealthy lifestyles, violent entertainment, gas-guzzling cars. The list is endless.
When our daughter was in high school, we felt her school performance was being compromised by excessive TV viewing. It was hard for her to give up her favorite shows; though we were not big TV watchers, we enjoyed watching certain things as well.
We decided, as a family, to get rid of all the TVs, meaning the "responsible" watchers had to give it up, too. We all survived, and our daughter's grades, social skills and friendships improved. Our family life improved as well. By being willing to give up something that was a right and was not harming us, we helped our daughter succeed.
People have the "right" to legally do many things that have a detrimental effect on themselves and their fellow citizens. We would all benefit by using more common sense and imposing voluntary restraint on the degree to which we exercise our rights. When public safety is compromised, this should include supporting laws that place reasonable controls on dangerous excess.
Let us remember that our forefathers were children of the Age of Enlightenment. Let the spirit of their words, not self-serving, literal, interpretations of them, guide our laws and our behaviors in making this land safe for all, especially her children.
SANDRA DOVBERG
Albany
