Hey, I live in another country and even I replied to them about that editorial:
In regard to the editorial article "Assault weapon ban may expire".
I noticed a particularly bad logical fallacy in this editorial, relating to "the Founding Fathers could never have imagined they were protecting Uzis when they were crafting the Bill of Rights."
The Founding Fathers also never imagined ball point pens, radios, television, telephones, computers and the internet when they drafted the First Ammendment. If it is reasonable to argue that one ammendment to the Bill of Rights should be limited to what the Founding Fathers could have imagined, is it not reasonable to make the same argument for every ammendment? I suggest your newspaper stop using any device not in use at the time when the First Ammendment was drafted (including electric powered printing presses) when producing your newspaper. After all, not only did the Founding Fathers not anticipate any of the technological devices used in modern journalism, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Edit: Bugger! Their letter to the editor interface choked on me. It looks like my note didn't get through. Oh well.