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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

If just 1 or 2 of the Paris victims had been carrying weapons. . .

To The Daily Sun,

This is offered as a postscript to the well-written letter by Don Ewing that was published in The Daily Sun on Saturday, Nov. 21. Our responsibility, as freedom loving Americans, is to expose the biggest lies of the irresponsible gun-ban crowd, which includes the fantasy that individuals don't need guns to protect themselves because that's the job of the police.

The following is taken from recent NRA file documents:

— "... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
— "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."

Those words are the exact wording and the opinions of the District of Columbia Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals, issued in 1978 and 1981, respectively, blocking a suit by three young women who had been raped and beaten for 14 hours during a nightmarish home invasion in 1975. Two of the three women had repeatedly called the D.C. police for help. Time and again they watched a police car slowly drive by their townhouse after their first call for help, then were told help was on its way in subsequent calls, when in fact it was not.

The decisions in that case, Warren v. District of Columbia, came at a time when incredibly, D.C. was still enforcing its ban on any firearms in the home for self-defense.

The decision by those lower courts in "Warren" mirrored decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedents. And since then, the latest high-court opinion, declaring "police have no duty to protect" ordinary citizens, was handed down in June 2005. All this gives the lie to the gun-ban crowd's mantra: "let law enforcement protect you."

The simple truth is, these cases were correctly decided because, were individual citizens owed an absolute duty to individual protection by police, no law enforcement agency in the nation could exist for long, because of the glut of litigation claiming violation of individuals' rights to police protection.

Admittedly, the circumstances that have led to some lawsuits against police departments involve horrendous indifference by police. But if "a duty" is owed in one awful situation marked by incompetence, it is owed in all cases by all law enforcement officers. And that, according to the court decisions, is simply not possible.

"Duty to protect?" We even see that slogan painted on the side of some municipality's squad cars. But the fact is police officers simply cannot be everywhere a crime of violence is occurring. These court rulings simply confirm that the job of police is to investigate, pursue criminals and make arrests after a crime has been committed.

I don't know who originated the notion that "when seconds count, the police are minutes away," but it defines why the individual right to keep and bear arms is such a core "right" in a free country. In some rural areas, those minutes might even be more like hours.

The question our friends and neighbors and fellow gun owners should ask is: "Who, then, protects you if the police have no duty to do so?" The answer is obvious. You do! Responsible members of your family do! Your neighbors do!

Had the young women in the Warren case been armed, they could have defended themselves. But at the time in 1975, such armed self-defense was a crime! in Washington, D.C. And nothing changed for the next 33 years.

That was the issue finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark June, 2008 Heller decision, striking down the D.C. handgun ban and the city's "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home inoperable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

In his ringing majority defense of the Second Amendment, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute."

That remarkable decision was followed by the high court's June 2010 majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, which extended the protection of the Second Amendment in "Heller" to every corner of the nation.

People need to understand that the Second Amendment doesn't require you to do anything! All it does is preserves their right and their choice to defend themselves with arms against criminal violence.

The gun-ban crowd always tries to present the idea that supporters of the Second Amendment are "cowboys," or backward, or stupid. However, if given the truth — the facts, most Americans will begin to understand the personal meaning of the Second Amendment. The gun-control fanatics also love to compare America to so many other countries that do not allow its citizens to protect themselves. But consider this — when the citizens of oppressive regimes protest against injustices, the government always has guns, but they are forced to use bottles and rocks.

If there is any "duty to protect," it is our "duty," as members of a free society, and as members of the NRA, legally qualified to "keep and bear arms," and to legally carry concealed, to protect the Second Amendment, and the lives of innocent people who are threatened by violence.

We can do that with our votes, by exercising the First Amendment and one-on-one convincing our friends, co-workers and neighbors of the truth of the cause of freedom.

As Mr. Ewing pointed out in his great letter, many of those innocent victims in Paris had been shot, one by one, by those monsters. If just a couple of people had been legally permitted to carry concealed in those venues in Paris, just think how much quicker those terrorists might have been stopped from killing so many people.

Wake up, America, before it's too late.

Jim McCoole
Laconia

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 176

Pres. Hillary will look after special interests who made her rich

To The Daily Sun,

Several letters in the Nov. 20 Laconia Daily Sun deserve comment.

Bless you, Bill Atkinson, for expressing the frustration that most Americans probably feel as our National Anthem is butchered by some would-be "star." Hopefully all your readers will commit to boldly singing the anthem with the respect, reverence and gratitude that it and the men and women who have fought for our nation deserve.

Karen Tays, just a little correction to your correction. Liberal media bias is clear in their attempt to smear Dr. Ben Carson. First, to try to make him look like a liar they imply he applied to West Point, which he never claimed. Then, to try to make him look stupid they imply that he wasn't accepted. Then, they quibble over his use of the words "full scholarship" which any high school student or non-expert would consider any completely-paid-for education whether at a military academy or someplace else.

Politifact (http://goo.gl/drJIKV) says, "The military academy has used the words "full scholarship" a few times in admissions literature and advertising and one (updated to two) place(s) on its website. However, experts say Carson's use of the word scholarship doesn't properly explain the application and appointment process to West Point." Desperate to impugn Dr. Carson, they reduce his claim from completely "true" to "mostly true" based on something only an expert would know or care about if he/she was providing a detailed explanation of the application and appointment process which Carson wasn't trying to do.

Further, when the media was promoting this smear, many talk show callers told how they were recruited by the military academies with promises of scholarships and that appointments could be secured even before an application was submitted.

For Ruth Larson: You will recall that Vice President Biden lauded the situation in Iraq and predicted that it would be one of President Obama's greatest achievements. (https://goo.gl/fkRGpa) Everyone would have opposed the war in Iraq had they known that President Obama would take the fairly stable Iraq (and Middle East) he inherited from President Bush and so screw it up that it would become the disaster we see today.

For Todd Welch: I regret that I cannot express myself in one syllable (little) words so that you can understand my letters. I typically write about ideas or policies, not people. I criticize Obama's disastrous policies just as I criticized Bush's disastrous policies regarding overspending, immigration, conduct of the war, etc. I criticize the establishments of both parties since neither seems to care about the impact of their policies on the American people as long as they enhance their own power and wealth.

I don't blame anyone when it's hot or cold, I call it weather. I do criticize politicians who try to call it something else in order to allow them to further interfere in the economy for their own benefit while making most Americans surrender more of our freedoms and hard-earned money.

Some of my recent letters were on the benefits of capitalism (people freely trading what they have for something they want more); an explanation that political influence in commerce that benefits appropriately grateful special interests is not capitalism but "crony capitalism" (aka corruption); the fact that "gun free zones" and excessive gun controls get people killed; the need for school choice so every child has a chance to get a good education in a safe environment; the need to stop illegal immigration; and the fact that Americans need to prepare to defend themselves because our politicians, for their personal objectives, refuse to take even the basic obvious steps to protect Americans from terrorists.

By the way, I will be very happy to have a female president who will work for the benefit of all the people. Anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton will favor the people over the special interests that made her and Bill multi-multi-millionaires since leaving the White House "broke" only 15 years ago is living in a fantasy world along with people who believe she cares about women after she spent eight years trying to smear and/or harm women who were brave enough to report that they were sexually molested by her husband.

Don Ewing
Meredith

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 160