I love it when Earle takes issue and tells me something I didn't think, what I don't believe or what I didn't say. Tell you what Earle, next time you reply to my letters, reply to my letters, not your filtered version of what it is you think I think or some manufactured version of what you say I wrote. In his letter, he never questions the validity of my arguments; he is just upset because they refute the lie he is attempting to promote.
If Earle had been able to see beyond his hatred, he would have realized that I was not so much "defending Obama" as I was defending the Second Amendment. The constitutional laws that I sighted prevent Obama, or any president, from circumventing the Second Amendment and confiscating guns from lawful owners. Our forefathers, in their wisdom, included safeguards in the Constitution to protect all the Amendments — including the 2nd. Apparently, Earle would rather see Obama maligned by lies rather than represented by truth.
Day in and day out, Earle contributes letters that have no basis in reality, just for the sake of "striking a blow against liberalism." His hatred and fear undermine what little integrity he may have. He knows he is writing fallacies or misleading information — he does it intentionally. It is no use in trying to convince him with facts; he is immune to them and they are looked upon as a liberal conspiracy to make him look bad. Why let the truth get in the way of a good lie?
The hysteria we've witnessed in recent letters by those suggesting that the government will "remove ownership of guns from the public" and "by-pass" Congress and "circumvent" the Second Amendment have no basis in fact.
L. J. Siden