In my teens, I belonged to the Junior NRA and learned how to handle firearms. I not only learned this skill, but in competition I ranked among the top marksmen in my age group. It was a skill I am glad to have learned and I have the NRA to thank for teaching it to me. However, I find the NRA’s opposition to limitations on the capacity of firearms or magazines available to the public to be more than a little disturbing.

The NRA advocates the need for the public not only to defend our homes but to be able rise up in rebellion against our elected government. It says we need to be able to face off against not only criminals but our own military (and police) with equivalent weaponry—automatic and semi-automatics therefore are necessary to preserve our “democracy.” I thought we had the vote for that.

Frankly, all that high-powered weaponry is not needed. We’ve got the ballot box and the right to assemble and protest — and if that isn’t enough, one bullet in the hands of a skilled marksman is all that is needed to bring down an intruder or the enemy. If a guy needs a semiautomatic with no limit on the size of magazine he can carry, then I’d say he’s a pathetic excuse for a man and no marksman.

Just what part of “well regulated” militia does the NRA and its supporters not understand?

The Second Amendment says “well regulated” militia, not just any Tom, Dick and Harry.

And while we’re at it, we should go back to funding mental institutions rather than let the insane continue to walk our streets without medical intervention. A limit on the violence in video games wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.

Gloria Monti

Middlebury