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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.


8th & 10th Amendments guard our rights from federal restriction

To The Daily Sun,

The clock is set to have an honest conversation; facts cannot be ignored, nor reality. We might when making statements, "... those who believe they have the right to not only own guns but to use them at will without penalty."

Be clearer. Individuals who legally purchase a gun do so for a wide range of reasons: hunting, target practice, as part of a collection, using them "at will" without penalty because as a citizen of a particular state and of the United States have a constitutional right now as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 - 2008).

The term arms included whatever might be used; which back in the day included tomahawks, hatchets, knives, swords, bayonets, pistols, rifles (yes, they had accurate rifles) and the musket. Insanely, the armies would stand in rows shooting at each others until close enough to use hand held knives and bayonets. They were very serious about not being controlled by a central government.

But to be honest about what is written in the Second Amendment about the right to bare arms actually applies to the individual states to ensure that the newly created federal government could not deny the state's right to maintain a militia — i.e.: sheriff, local and state police and state guards, which now are controlled by the federal government (state guards were nationalized under FDR).

It is the 8th and 10th amendments which guard individuals right from federal restriction. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state of Georgia in 1837 on its ban on hand guns, and so the creep began, the federal government taking control using the the very amendment which prohibited it from taking control.

The Bill of Rights are amendments limiting federal control not an amendment giving rights to the states and/or the people. So let's have an honest conversation. Read New Hampshire's Constitution, it was effective June 2, 1784, the United States federal government's ratified ‎June 21, 1788.

As far the demons being everywhere, well they are.

G.W. Brooks

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 195

A modest person is modest regardless of clothes they do or don't wear

To The Daily Sun,

Ms. Chelsea Davis has some interesting things to say in her July 4 letter to The Sun. She invents and attacks an argument about clothing prices which, as far as I can tell, no Free The Nipple supporter has ever made.

She says that exposing the nipple is "wrong" if you are "biblically-inclined," but I would suggest that she might do better to read that fine piece of literature before telling us what it supposedly says. If she bothered to do so, she might discover that it doesn't say anything at all about nipples. Sure, it talks of modesty, but there is no mention of nipples of either sex being immodest. Peter spoke about jewelry and braided hair, though. One wonders if Ms. Davis gets as worked up about the "immodesty" the Bible actually discusses as she does about nipples, which the Bible does not actually mention.

But the real kicker is when she attempts to equate someone dressing for the beach in the same way as countless others dress for the beach, with shoving a Bible in someone's face and trying to force them to convert. From what I've seen, Free The Nipple supporters are crystal clear that no one should ever feel forced to participate.

What Ms. Davis doesn't want is to even see them in public. The equivalent to that would be banning Bibles and crosses from public places. One wonders if Ms. Davis would support attempts to do so, if some anti-religion activists decided to put forth such a bill? After all, Bibles would still be allowed in churches ("designated places"), so Ms. Davis should have no problem with such a proposal. And, if she did, she would not object, because there are much more important issues regarding religion, like extremist terrorism and ISIS. That is the standard she wants to apply to others standing up for their beliefs, so it would be hypocritical to hold a different standard for herself.

Personally, though, I would find such a proposal horribly offensive. Despite not being a Christian, I have no desire to see their symbols prohibited in public, and would fight to defend their right to publicly express their faith. As a father, I wish my children to grow up in a world where they can learn about different ideals and decide for themselves what they do and do not believe. I also want my children to grow up in a world where my daughters are not treated as second-class citizens and my son is not taught that a woman's modesty is determined by her clothing rather than her personal choices. Modesty is something that comes from within. A modest person is modest whether s/he is fully clothed or bare, and an immodest person is immodest, even wearing a parka in July.

Joseph Brown

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 247