With deference for his stewardship in other areas, taxpayers who pay Sen. Angus King for his stewardship are curious why his proposed gun regulation leaves room for possibly 10 people being killed in Lewiston instead of the tragic 18 killed by domestic assault weaponry.
Or possibly five victims from handguns with assault capability.
Why his proposal, instead of eliminating manufacture and sales of “domestic” assault rifles and guns altogether?
When we consider the additional wounding of PTSD, why eliminate his stewardship in this regard?
Susan Dorman, Bethel
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Related Stories
Latest Articles