ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT


FEATURED JOBS



Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Delicious
E-mail this article
Print this Article
advertisement

My husband, Lance, and I are law-abiding, taxpaying, voting small business owners in Maryland. We want nothing more than to raise our family, take care of our home, grow our businesses and live our lives with as little intrusion as possible.

This is becoming more and more difficult. Our taxes continue to be raised on all levels, and the regulations that surround our businesses have become too much of a burden to keep them a priority.

We oppose any and all newly proposed gun ban legislations and regulations, as well as restrictions to our ability to carry a weapon for self-defense outside of our home. To me, the proposed ban is not only an assault on the law-abiding citizen’s rights, it also signifies one more intrusion into our lives. It will cause an undue financial burden on law-abiding gun owners, as well as cost the taxpayers more money to implement its bureaucratic hoops.

This would all be welcomed if it actually addressed any of the issues at hand. We already have plenty of gun laws and hoops that the law-abiding citizen must jump through to own a gun, but those still didn’t prevent the tragedies seen on the news. How will one more ban or law help?

The state where the Sandy Hook tragedy took place already had an assault-weapons ban and that school was a gun-free zone, yet the tragedy still unfolded. I ask again, how will one more law or ban help to prevent another tragedy?

I saw no effective measures in this proposed bill that actually addressed the criminal actions of someone with a gun. I saw nothing about harsher penalties for those who commit crimes with guns. Why is this? Why are only the law-abiding citizens being targeted? Criminals, by default, do not follow laws. What makes the legislature feel this will actually prevent them from committing crimes?

History shows that if a deranged person or criminal has their mind made up to commit an egregious act, they will do so by any means possible. If they can’t find a gun, they will use a car, a knife, poison, explosives etc. Why are none of these things listed in the bill? The true intention is to prevent tragedies, correct?

If the law cannot prevent all criminals from committing horrific acts against law-abiding citizens, the government should not be disarming the citizens or limiting what they use to defend themselves. As a citizen, I have the right and duty to protect myself, and this extends beyond my front door.

As a woman and mother, it is imperative that I am able to protect myself and the lives of my children. My daughter was born with spina bifida and predominately uses a wheelchair. Therefore, she cannot run, duck and hide like other children. Why would the governor propose a bill that would limit my choices of weapons that I may choose to use and limit the amount of ammunition I may have available to me? This puts my children’s lives and my life in greater danger. My gun is my equalizer, and I ask that you do not limit my choices. Do not demonize me or make me feel like a criminal because I choose to exercise my right to self-defense. I am not the criminal nor am I the cause of the tragedies we’ve seen on the news, yet all the bans and new laws affect me.



Faye A. Weekly, Waldorf