A Letter to the Editor...

... talking about gun regulation tops the Miami Herald's page today. Let's take a look, shall we?

Gun regulation needed

Re the May 18 letter Ban on guns, freedom: The assault-weapons ban, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, was not, as the letter writer stated, ''ineffective'' and therefore "allowed to sunset.''

Actually, the ban was highly ineffective and allowed to sunset. I'd like to see you provide evidence to the contrary.

President Bush, despite his assertion that he would keep it in place, allowed the bill to expire, backed by a Republican-led Congress. As early as 1996, the National Rifle Association pushed the U.S. House of Representatives to vote to repeal the ban, but the Senate would not follow suit. The NRA listed opposition to renewal of the law as one of its criteria on its 2002 election candidate questionnaire.

The President had no control over whether to allow the ban to expire or not, that fell solely to congress. He also didn't assert he'd keep it in place, he said he'd sign it if it came across his desk. It didn't.

The reason the House voted to repeal it wasn't solely the work of the NRA. It was also the voters in the various districts who voted out the Democrats who enacted the ban. It became a huge issue after the fact and people objected, simple as that.

An attempt by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to extend the law by 10 years was defeated by that same Congress. It was a political move then, not a practical one, that killed the assault-weapons ban.

No, it was a political move that enacted the ban in the first place, not a practical one (see link above). It had no effect on crime, mainly because "assault weapons" weren't used in crimes in the first place.

The NRA's argument that attempts to regulate guns somehow impede one's freedom always has puzzled me. Freedom to do what? Shoot your dinner at Publix?

No, freedom to keep and bear arms. You know, that little thing called the Second Amendment.

Is your freedom to drive impinged upon by the state's licensing or automakers' safety codes?

Yes, actually it is. Well, it would be, if I were to get caught drunk behind the wheel. Besides, there is no right to drive, it's a privilege. Right vs. privilege. Apples and oranges.

Do you want to be operated on by someone unlicensed to practice medicine because his ''freedom'' was violated at being regulated?

There are plenty of unlicensed doctors doing business in the US. That doesn't mean I'm going to go to one. Again, apples and oranges.

Yet we are breathless in our outrage at any attempt to put even the mildest of controls on something even more inherently and purposefully deadly.

An outright ban is far from "the mildest of controls" m'dear, and a gun is only as deadly as the person using it.

Please do spare me the rhetoric about predators and criminals. How fearful do we all have to be before the NRA is happy?

Hmmm. Rhetoric. I assume you mean "the undue use of exaggeration", like when you call a ban on weapons that look similar to military assault rifles "the mildest of controls". As to predators and criminals just take my challenge, then get back with me.

I would suggest that those of us wishing for some sanity in gun regulation do have an ''agenda.'' It's called common sense. And I am hopeful that the Supreme Court in interpreting the Second Amendment for our modern world will show some.

SUSAN WALSH, Coral Springs

If what you've written passes for common sense in Coral Springs, I'm glad I'm here instead of there.

.