George Smith’s column of Sept. 7 (”Background check initiative complicated, unreasonable”) says you should vote no on Question 3 concerning the “gun sale question.” Smith’s arguments against this initiative, and those of the NRA, just don’t hold water.

Smith says if Question 3 passed, he possibly, might be, inconvenienced. Possibly, might. But not necessarily.

On page B2 of that same paper, under the headline “Waterville convict arrested for alleged firearm possession” : “A man who previously served time in jail for beating his young stepdaughter and causing her death was arrested on Monday after allegedly showing a firearm at his ex-girlfriend’s house and failing to stop for police while driving.”

Sounds like the stepdaughter, ex-girlfriend (with whom he argued but chose not to shoot) and law enforcement were also inconvenienced. Not possibly, not might, but actually were.

The NRA called the question “Bloomberg’s gun control question.” Maine people, thousands, signed the petition. NRA says Question 3 would criminalize loans and gifts. What the NRA is really saying here is what Smith says in his column. If a person flaunts the law and refuses to be inconvenienced, they might, possibly, be cited. Not necessarily, because the NRA says the law is unenforceable.

The NRA says if the question passes, it will not stop criminals. No law stops criminals. They’re criminals because they choose to ignore the law. Then it says the question is vague and misleading. That falls into that earlier category — the might and possibly category.

Question 3 satisfies the big objection — it doesn’t touch the Second Amendment. It’s not gun control. It inconveniences some gun owners. Not all. Many feel as I do — we need to do something about gun violence.

We haven’t had a mass murder here in Maine — yet. But it’s not out of the question.

Robert Woodbury

Winslow

Copy the Story Link