February 17, 2018

To the editor: On Sinacola’s ‘uninformed’ bump-stock views

Print More

Chris Sinacola’s [commentary] regarding the recent Massachusetts legislation prohibiting the sale and possession of bump stocks substitutes uninformed passion for rational analysis.

This legislation is not, as he claims, a violation of any “rule of law.” It is the law. It is also not, as claimed, a law “restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens” but one which protects the rights of those citizens, and others, from a device demonstratively capable of causing mass murder. It also does not, as claimed, cause law-abiding citizens to become “criminals.” To the contrary, it will prevent criminals from using this device to convert a legal firearm into an assault weapon.

Public safety is a hallmark responsibility of our society and a ban on bump stocks is not, Mr. Sinacola’s rant notwithstanding, an affront to either common sense or constitutional principles.

The Sun has the opportunity to be a platform for the thoughtful expression of ideas. That opportunity should not be wasted by hyperbolic editorials.

Note from the editor: Chris Sinacola is an opinion columnist, not an editorial writer; his views do not necessarily, and have never been intended to, reflect those of the Worcester Sun.

— Michael P. Angelini, Worcester

One thought on “To the editor: On Sinacola’s ‘uninformed’ bump-stock views

  1. “a device demonstratively capable of causing mass murder”

    All you have to do is read that statement to understand how completely misinformed Mr. Angelini is. Like all other far left ideologues, he wants to assign will to an inanimate object.

    And his other claims that Mr Sincola position is wrong on when he state that rights and rule of law have been violated, he provides zero evidence for these claims. While if one wishes to defend Mr. Sinacola’s position all that you have to do is refer the reader sections of the United State Constitution.

    His letter is so pathetic that a middle schooler minimal education in our founding principles could quite easily put together a more cogent argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *