A+ A A-

SB-2 returns the rights to those who can’t attend Town Meeting

To the editor,
In today's Sun, someone replied to my letter supporting SB-2 (originally published on April 16). This reply was so focused on personal issues, it totally forgot about the actual issue — which is giving all Sanbornton residents a say in town decision-making, even if they cannot attend the town meeting.
The letter in today's Sun was quite critical, launching a personal attack against myself and others who might support SB-2. It implied that those who exercised their vote under the auspices of SB-2 would become easily overwhelmed and confused — and so flummoxed that, instead of making intelligent choices, would just "throw up their hands" in frustrated ignorance.
It went on to further imply that those attending town meeting, having had the opportunity to ask questions and share information with the other incredibly knowledgeable attendees, would vote to make the "right" decisions, thus preserving not only the treasured process of town meeting, but ensuring the long-term future of Sanbornton as well.
And it doesn't seem to matter why someone might not attend the town meeting — preferring not to go to a 4+ hour town meeting obviously would not qualify as a legitimate excuse for absence. But neither does illness, having to work, being called away on business or taking a vacation. In other words, if you aren't able to participate, too bad for you; you don't get a say in how your taxes are spent.
To summarize: a town meeting with limited attendance and a few people making decisions about our town — GOOD; SB-2: allowing all people to participate in the decision-making regardless of ability to attend a meeting — BAD. Seems that participating and "enjoying" the town meeting isn't an inherited treasure after all — it is more like an inherited coercion. Participate in the town meeting or your rights are forfeited.
Didn't they have similar ideologies in Nazi Germany? And don't they still have them today in North Korea? Hmm... the last time I looked, this was still the USA... land of the free. WIth this in mind, shouldn't we consider what this really means to our other "inherited treasures" — like freedom of choice?
Bill Whalen

Last Updated on Thursday, 02 May 2013 08:52

Hits: 417

Gun-free school zones establish a safe haven for shooters

To the editor,
In a recently past letter to the editor, an anti-gunner demanded a logical explanation. Logic, it is the one thing that totally escapes anti-gunners. One thing that has become extremely clear: anti-gunners have chosen to dance on the graves of dead children with their mantra "if only to save one child's life" while turning a blind eye to what has killed those children. The anti-gunners then have the gall to challenge that those who recognize their murderous methods for what they are, to provide "logical explanations" when they will not hear or see logic or facts!
Fact: Background checks do not work! In the Sandy Hook incident, the supposed perpetrator was denied a firearm purchase due to his background check. He murdered his own mother and acquired the tools he wanted. Logic: BACK GROUND CHECK DID NOT STOP HIM! BACK GROUND CHECKS DO NOT WORK! If it does not work, as has been proven, stop pursuing it!
Fact: Every mass shooting with a high body count has been perpetrated on defenseless victims in gun free zones! We have more than two decades of proof; since its inception in 1991, the Gun Free School Zones Act has provided a safe haven for perpetrators of gun violence. In the USA there have been 59 schools victimized due to the anti-gunner's favorite creation. Logic: Gun free zones are shooting galleries for those intent on mayhem and the highest body count they can get. Since it WILL save even one child, BAN GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES AND SAVE LIVES! All logic ignored or lost: "even to save the life of one child", anti-gunners will not allow the repeal of the gun free school zone act; they won't have more dead children's graves to dance on if that one life saving thing happens!
Fact: A mother hid with her two children in a crawl-way in their home when it was invaded. The invader found them, and she shot him multiple times to affect an escape — and the perpetrator STILL exited the house and drove away from the scene! What if the man had not been alone and she had to try and defend herself and her children from more than one home invader? Anti-gunners, explain to me why we should NOT be allowed to have the high capacity magazines necessary to defend our families? Give me a 100, a 1,000 rounds in one magazine, that I may effectively defend my home and loved ones!
Anti-gunners are incapable of seeing. They cannot think logically, and oh, do not confuse them with facts! Facts and logic mean nothing to them, or is lost on their need for emotional response. The gun control lobby will fight tooth and nail for a higher body count to serve their agenda of turning everyone into victims of gun violence. Their mantra "if only to save one more child" is their hollow feel-good chant while they deny the truth: THEY THEMSELVES ARE THE CAUSE OF THE MASS SHOOTINGS. They insist on protecting the criminals, making their job easier while trying to make law abiding citizens into criminals for simply having and using the tools they need to protect their homes and families.
A.C.R. Piper

Last Updated on Thursday, 02 May 2013 08:32

Hits: 365

Fund set up to help landscaper devastated by building fire

To the editor
My name is Casandra, my boyfriend Kevin Hutchinson owns the property located at 749 White Oaks Road in Laconia, the property that sustained a huge loss when the arena that housed all of his landscape company's equipment burned, there was also a boat a couple of snowmobiles, jet skies, a box truck filled with personal/irreplaceable belongings, a few utility trailers a John Deer tractor, five snow plows, sander, many vehicles (six) parked directly outside of the arena were a total loss. The list is much more detailed but I think you can see how much this has affected the Hutchinson family.
The loss is even more devastating when we were informed that there was no insurance coverage for the arena and/or the material/s inside or out. The coverage that was in place was only on the house that is also on the property. The fire chief announced that there is an estimated loss amount of over $750,000. At this point Kevin cannot continue to run his landscape company as three of the four trucks were damaged the trailer/s in which he uses to haul away grass clippings, debris and to transport the commercial size lawn mowers, are considered a complete loss. Kevin also recently purchased three large piles of mulch an estimated $4,000 total in mulch stock and that was also ruined as they sustained fire and smoke damage.
I am asking that an article be placed on the front page of your newspaper sometime this week giving a short article and to inform the community, residents and business owners, \that there has been a donation account set up at the Bank of NH in the name of: The Kevin Hutchinson Fund. Anyone can make a donation to this fund by either calling or stopping into any one of the bank branches and giving them the name of the account. This account was set up by Kevin's two daughter's Kyrie and Katelyn Hutchinson. Also any kind of donation would be very much appreciated.
Casandra O'Reilly

Last Updated on Thursday, 02 May 2013 08:33

Hits: 415

I can no longer watch TV wasteland and the censored news

To the editor,
Thank you for your fine newspaper where "the truth is the light". I no longer watch the vast wasteland called T.V. and its censored news. As we are a government for and by the people not a political party and what calls itself 'leaders'.
Infringements under any guise on our state and federal Constitutions threaten our well being and freedom.
Today we see groups and activists who seek to decide whats best for us. It is not supposed to be this way. Unless we speak up and 'loud' we will be slaves and those who would rule masters. Today it's all about we the people and how long 'we' remain 'free'.
Donald C. Poirier

Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 May 2013 10:49

Hits: 344

Did the 18th Amendment stop people from drinking? It did not

To the editor,
You would think that Sen. Kelly Ayotte had committed a crime against humanity for voting against Pres. Obama's gun control bill by the way she is being savaged by the left. Obama himself said that these new restrictions would not have prevented the Newtown massacre but I guess he and the Dems expect they would going forward. I have to ask, why? Will more laws and restrictions targeting law-abiding citizens stop the crazies and criminals from getting guns? Did the 18th Amendment stop people from drinking and reduce crime and violence? Has the War on Drugs reduced drug use, lowered crime and violence in America? Knowing the answers to these questions are no, why do the Dems think doing the same things over and over they will get different results this time? Typically this bogus bill is more Dem feel-good, do-nothing legislation attempting to appeal to one of their special interest groups and fool the unwary into thinking they are actually trying to protect the children in public schools. In reality it's a political move to ensure their re-elections and defeat Republicans. So when will these Dems start really trying to do something that will protect our kids?
Last week one letter writer asked the question, "why do law abiding citizens need assault rifles?" The answer is because there are lots of very bad people out there. An example was the marathon bombing where, when the Islamic terrorists were confronted by the Watertown Police, over 200 rounds were fired by police, trained officers, and still suspect #1 was only killed when his brother ran him over with an SUV and escaped. Knowing this, the anti gun gang still wants to tell citizens that they should be limited to firearms that hold no more then 10 rounds, cannot fire semi-automatically, and do not look a certain way. Yes, this is a worse case example but so what? Who are these gun grabbers, who know nothing about guns, to tell others what they do or don't need?
Another writer from the left said that 90 percnet of Americans are in favor of gun controls, insinuating the Obama gun control bill. Not so, most gun owners like myself are in favor of controls but want controls that target criminal and crazies not honest people. Further the 90 percent number cited was from a pole that was taken only in several eastern liberal-leaning states and targeted predominantly Democratic voters. So I doubt if an honest pole was taken by an independent group without asking leading questions you would get those results. Any bets?
Steve Earle

Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 May 2013 10:44

Hits: 500

The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register