I made these changes because I felt that a letter to an Editor would have to have the necessary shift in perspective from being on the offensive to taking a softer line. This was done out of propriety as well as a desire not to join issue with the other readers. I wanted to get my point across and argue about the editorial without taking on other readers on what may seem to be a futile attempt to join issue with them. The intention here was to comment on the issue at hand and not get carried away in making my case strongly.
I did quote on more than one occasion from the editorial. The quotation that I chose was to reflect the gravity of the issue at hand and make some suggestions regarding the same. The idea here was to show the author of the editorial the points where I agreed with her and the points where I felt she should have taken a more assertive stand. Hence, I selectively quoted from the article to reflect these positions of mine.
I want to make the point that guns do not have a place in a civilized society and particularly in national parks. Hence, my target audience would be the kind of people who would join the Mothers against drunk driving and similar projects. I was trying to convey my sense of anguish about using guns in public places and particularly in the national parks and hence wanted to convey my desire to make my stand clear. If my letter has to be evaluated fairly, my stand against taking guns to public places must be made clear and that I have strong opinions regarding the same.
To the best of my ability, I have made everything clear. I have stated the reasons for writing the letter as well as the position that I took. In this way, I have conveyed the reasons why I wrote that letter as well as what changed from the initial draft and what remained the same. Hence, I hope to be evaluated according to the merits of the letter and