Monday, June 16, 1997 3:57 PM
A while ago, I read a letter to the public forum of a local newspaper from
a man who couldn't understand the attempts of people to repeal the assault
He stated that "Things haven't gotten worse" and "I can't see any change
in my quality of living", and therefore, there wasn't any reason to try
and strike down the law banning the possession of military style firearms
that were manufactured after a certain date.
Nowhere in his letter, though, did he mention that his life had improved
any as a result of the law. Isn't that what our laws are for? To improve
the quality of life? It seems pretty arrogant to me that this individual,
who had seen no positive effects of the law, assumed that no one at all was
negatively affected, or just didn't care.
Everyone can agree that no law should decrease quality of life, but what
about a law that changes nothing? Even though I personally believe that the
assault weapons law has decreased quality of life for people, should
we allow laws that have neither a positive nor negative effect to continue
to be passed? Apparently, that is what this individual believed. Any law
is okay as long as it doesn't make things worse. It doesn't have to improve
anything at all. The idea is repugnant to me that lawmakers can be allowed
to toss around a "what difference does it make" attitude when passing
If a law doesn't do any good, don't pass it. It's just common sense. Or,
rather, it should be.