This is in response to Steve Mortimer’s response (Oct. 9) to my letter (Oct. 6). He missed a point. I clearly stated that I am not opposed to background checks, just how Question 3 is written.
I will mention, too, that there is a difference between Michael Bloomberg spending millions in Maine pushing Question 3 and that of the money flowing from the gun lobby. The gun lobby’s money is for preserving rights already afforded me in the U.S. Constitution, while Bloomberg’s goal is to take away those rights.
It is unfortunate that, like Mortimer, proponents see the world through rose-colored glasses. They think another law will fix any problem. The reality is, passage of Question 3 would do nothing to stop lawbreakers from purchasing guns, any more than drug laws prevent the purchase of drugs. God only knows, there are enough drug laws already, yet that problem worsens every day.
Why? Because lawbreakers do not follow the law.
I am curious why those people urging a “yes” vote on Question 3 avoid bringing up the bad portions of that proposal. For example, Mortimer states that Question 3 doesn’t require a background check when loaning guns “out in the woods” but fails to mention if a hunting partner borrows that rifle to go hunting on his own it could mean jail time. He didn’t include “friends and neighbors,” either.
I support a “no” vote on Question 3. Then re-write the current laws concerning background checks.
Roland Rancourt Jr., Auburn
Send questions/comments to the editors.
