Gun rights defenders are not ‘hysterical’

Why is it necessary to call critics of President Obama’s executive action on gun violence hysterical as you did in your Jan. 7 editorial?

Is it hysterical to not have a lot of faith in him based on some of his previous statements? Such as, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” or his infamous drawing of a red line in the sand threat to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons?

Is this executive action the first cut in a death by a thousand cuts? To quote a 2013 statement by Larry Sabato, who runs the Center of Politics at the University of Virginia, “A whole series of presidents developed credibility gaps, because people didn’t trust what they were saying anymore. And that’s Obama’s real problem.”

You ended your editorial by stating you were still waiting for the president’s foes to explain why the rights of gun owners are more important than than those of the rights to worship, assemble and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, they are not. However, gun rights are under assault by executive action. Who’s being hysterical?

This story was originally published January 14, 2016 at 5:37 AM with the headline "Gun rights defenders are not ‘hysterical’."