I don't mean to bore those who are more intelligent than I, but I have several questions. They have to do with automatic weapons, rights, relative value of life, activists, the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

What can be the rationale for permitting the sale of deadly automatic weapons? The discussions focus on how the wrong people were able to obtain permits. Well, how about those who get them illegally?

Do the Supreme Court, the National Rifle Asssociation, or anyone else really believe the framers of our Constitution would have included such automatic weapons in the right to bear arms? Who would miss them if they were made unavailable to the general public? Duck hunters?

I've heard the argument that people kill, guns don't. And this is usually followed by the argument that law enforcement should take care of the bad guys. But what if the bad guys shoot the police, as was recently done in Pittsburgh? Is this OK?

The right to life is really what these questions are about. If activists are so truly bent on persuading lawmakers about stopping abortion and capital punishment, what about the innocent victims killed by these weapons? Or the police officers who died trying to protect us? Are they less valued than embryos and convicted killers?

Why aren't the churches and others who proclaim the right to life lobbying government to ban these weapons?

And finally, you and I, why are we so willing to let our representatives in government do nothing to address these questions? Aren't we permitting a kind of home-grown terrorism?

We're all pretty good at throwing money at -- and politicizing -- national problems. Is that the best we can do?

Gil Taylor

Pinehurst