Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


Millions thought their own government would never kill them

  • Published in Letters
To the editor,
Even while admitting his mistake about the "Fast and Furious" program which, as Jay Kennedy pointed out (May 14), James Veverka continues trying to mislead readers into thinking was "a continuation of George Bush's 2006 gun walking program called 'Operation Wide Receiver'." These programs were very different.
The Bush program was a joint US-Mexican program, the Obama program was kept secret from the Mexicans. The Bush program tracked guns via embedded tracking devices. The Obama program didn't track the guns. The Bush program ended when gangsters found and removed the tracking devices. The Obama program ended when the public discovered that Obama had supplied guns that killed Americans and helped kill thousands of Mexicans.
The purpose of the Bush program was to damage the drug cartels. Bush and our country were widely criticized for allowing guns from America to get into the hands of Mexican gangsters.
Considering Bush's results, what could have been the purpose of Obama's gun running program? No credible explanation has been provided. Did the Obama administration think that their program would hurt the drug cartels? That would require a "willing suspension of disbelief."
The likely explanation is that "Fast and Furious" was intended to fuel our country's outrage and sense of guilt for gun violence in Mexico. This "crisis" was intended to justify more gun controls, each control inching towards the liberal goal of confiscating guns from law abiding citizens.
Most crime is prevented by effective law enforcement, not general gun controls and confiscations. Gun controls and confiscations serve another purpose, extending government control of citizens. Some liberals admit they want gun confiscation, e.g., Biden, Schumer, and Feinstein. Others reveal their desire by promoting laws like the Toomey-Manchin bill that will create more victims rather than fewer, and that harass and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens far more than they hinder criminals.
Have governments taken advantage of citizen control obtained by gun confiscations? Yes. In the twentieth century, 100-250 million people falsely thought "my government wouldn't kill me and my family", but they did. Roughly 10 to 20 times as many citizens were murdered by their own governments as were murdered by other citizens.
While liberals ridicule the idea of U.S. government abuse, there are many examples: slavery, Wounded Knee, Japanese internments, Jim Crow laws, etc. Knowing that people are corruptible, America's founders created the Second Amendment to ensure that citizens have the ability to defend their rights and liberties from an oppressive government if the political processes fail. To avoid the unthinkable, Americans must prevent the erosion of each of their constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.
Don Ewing