NRA Member Defends Stand

Sam Brunstein (“I Am the NRA; I Want to Be Safe at Home,” July 25, Voices) appears to be a thoughtful man whose interest in firearms is the protection of his family and who believes the NRA is crucial to that end. I wish he would think about the following:

The NRA defends with a vengeance the “right to bear arms,” including machine guns, Teflon bullets, artillery and just about anything else that makes a lot of noise and does a lot of damage from a great distance. Who’s really in control of the NRA, Mr. Brunstein, and why do they need so much “right”?

To my knowledge, no mainstream “handgun control advocate” has ever threatened to “disarm” or take away a legitimately acquired handgun from people like Brunstein. But the NRA, which resists even regulation of the fly-by-night weapon-mongers who operate from their car trunks, in effect arms the very criminals of whom Brunstein is afraid. Is this really the kind of “empowerment” he feels is crucial to “protecting himself in the middle of the night”? The drunk whom Brunstein talks about could easily have bought the shotgun that afternoon without identification, reason, history check or waiting period. On credit. No questions asked. Do you really need to walk into a gun store, plunk down your credit card and walk out three minutes later with a 9-mm, 16-shot Baretta or a 30-shot assault rifle? Lacking a record, that drunk could. Would waiting a week or two really kill you?

ALLAN RABINOWITZ

Los Angeles

*

Brunstein’s essay was a masterpiece. A pro-gun gentleman who expresses the feelings of a large number of gun owners. I was rather surprised that The Times printed such an article. Anti-gun activists are empowering the criminals, not the intended victims.

RON POLCHOW

La Canada Flintridge