A+ A A-

Looking for members of the Laconia High School Class of 1983

To the editor,
The Laconia High School Class of 1983 is planning its 30th reunion and needs some help locating missing classmates. If anyone knows the whereabouts of the following classmates, or their last known location, please e-mail Lynn Brody Keltz at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or Tracy Denaris Dassatti at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Decato, Robert; Dion, Dean; Doherty, Paul; Gouette, Dave; Hall, Rick; Hodgkins, Mike; Houston, Kurt; Keefe, Deborah; Langan, Keith; Latour, Kevin; Laurent, Kevin; Lefler Hoagland, Faith; Levasseur, Rob; Mathena-Senechal, Sherri; Moffett, Charron; Moore, Clayton; Morrissett, Jason; Plume, Patrick; Ricker, Steve; Rogers, Martha; Runnals, Scott; Sargent, Wayne; Silcox, Rodney; Thorten, Shawna.
We've recovered most of our classmates, and just need a little help finding a few others.
LHS Class of 1983
Reunion Committee

Last Updated on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 12:29

Hits: 713

Politicians want to pass gun laws to create false sense of security

To the editor,
One of the difficulties with having an honest discussion with liberals is that they misrepresent, or should I say lie about, what their opponents say. James Veverka's comments on my letter of April 9, 2013 are a good example.
Veverka says I claimed that "2.5 million crimes were averted by gun toters" is a Clinton administration number. That is false. As I clearly indicated, the Clinton administration numbers were 1.5 million crimes prevented annually by "gun toters" (in Veverka's words). Here is the text from my letter that Veverka refers to: "Estimates are that between 1,500,000 (Clinton Justice Department number) and 2,500,000 crimes are prevented annually by armed citizens." (Note: There are numerous studies with estimates in this range.)
In typical liberal attack mode, after misrepresenting what I clearly stated, he claims that Fox and the NRA misrepresent facts, but he provides no justification for this opinion. He is certainly entitled to his opinion no matter how irrational it is.
I looked, but I have not found anywhere in the world where total gun confiscation has reduced violent crime. Generally, murders, occupied home invasions, and other violent crimes increase... and in some cases increase significantly.
As long as hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens can cross our borders annually and bring thousands of tons of illegal drugs, criminals will be able to get weapons if they want them no matter how many guns are taken from law abiding citizens ... making them defenseless.
President Obama claims that background checks have stopped two million people from getting guns. Like most liberal statements that are not outright lies, that claim is misleading. Almost all those initial denials were later approved. So they just delayed law abiding citizens from getting the guns they wanted, and the guns that some of them may have needed because of real immediate threats.
How many felons or dangerous mentally ill were prevented from getting guns? I don't know. But, in 2010, out of the approximately 80,000 background check denials, the Obama administration only prosecuted 44 people. In fact, under Obama Federal gun prosecutions are down 40-45 percent.
How are law abiding people harmed by background checks that delays them from getting a gun? If 2 percent of the two million denials stopped people who really needed a gun NOW to protect themselves, that would be 40,000 people prevented from being able to defend themselves at the moment that they felt most at risk from a stalker, an angry ex-lover or spouse or someone else.
I don't know the number of the law abiding people who were actually battered, raped, or murdered because their attempt to obtain a gun was inappropriately denied, but some were. Maybe 2 percent is too high an estimate. Maybe only 1 percent, 20,000 end up being victims because they could not defend themselves from a known threat. Maybe only half a percent, 10,000, a quarter of a percent 5,000, or maybe only one-hundredth of one percent, 200 law abiding people were prevented from getting the gun they needed to prevent being beaten, raped, or murdered.
As far as I am concerned if only 200 law abiding people became victims because of government hindrance, it is unacceptable. Government is supposed to protect us, not make us victims. Vice President Biden seemed willing to move heaven and earth to save one life ... well, he can start by fixing the background check system so it won't create hundreds of defenseless victims.
Veverka says that murder rates dropped during the 1990s. Great! That is part of a long-term trend. Veverka probably knows (but apparently is unwilling to inform other readers) that even though Americans now have about 50 percent more guns and about 100 percent more concealed carry licenses, murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault have continued to decline significantly since 2000.
I understand that politicians desperately want to pass some law so they can claim to concerned constituents that they are doing something. Less vocally politicians acknowledge that nothing they are considering would have stopped Newtown or Columbine or any other crime. Why do we want politicians to pass laws that may harm law abiding citizens just so they can create a false impression of usefulness?
The fact is that politician don't do a good job of enforcing current laws, and their failure is no excuse to pass new laws that won't stop criminals and may create more defenseless victims.
To stop crime, keep violent criminals locked up. Ensure that there are safeguards against those who have been adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill. And, to reduce the number of defenseless victims, encourage more law abiding people to consider, as many in law enforcement suggest, being prepared to defend themselves.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Don Ewing

Last Updated on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 12:09

Hits: 349

Let's hope we'll vote Sen. Ayotte out of office next time she runs

To the editor,
Shame on Sen. Kelly Ayotte for voting to block gun safety reform. It's a disgrace that a small group of senators were able to block life-saving gun legislation. Background checks are common sense — and they work. If we are required to register our cars (which also occasionally kill), why shouldn't we be required to register our guns?
Sen. Ayotte decided to stand with the NRA's lobby for the profit of the gun industry, and reject expanded background checks, even though 89 percent of the people in New Hampshire supported it. Because of the cowardice of Sen. Ayotte and others like her, 33 people per day will continue to be murdered with guns every single day of the year — that multiplies out to over 12,000 people per year killed by needless gun violence!
If we as American citizens are devastated by the bombing violence that killed 3 people and injured 170 during the Boston Marathon incident, how much more should we stand firm to support, in any way possible, the saving of 12,000 lives every year that are now threatened by gun violence?
Let us hope that the 89-percnet of NH voters who support better gun safety laws will remember this shameful action of Congress — and vote Sen. Kelly Ayotte out of office the next time she runs for re-election.
Charlotte Cox

Last Updated on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 12:01

Hits: 404

Oft-quoted 90% poll was taken in only 6 eastern states

To the editor,
I read the letter from Dorothy Duffy about Senator Ayotte and her vote on background check legislation. I consider Dorothy a friend even though we rarely agree on political issues and I am not sure Dorothy knows all the facts that she represented.
In the first sentence she states that Sen. Ayotte voted against 90 percent of the people in the United States. I am sure Dorothy is using a statistic that she heard misrepresented by the president, who took this number from a Quinnipiac poll.
The problem is that this poll was only given in six Eastern States (NJ, NY, MA, CT, RI and MD) that have some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. This poll also sampled 22 percent more Democrat voters than Republican voters and was passed off as representative of the entire country.
Rasmussen conducted a poll in the same states with the same ratio of Democrat to Republican and ended up with a result of 71 percent in favor of stricter background checks. When they ran this same poll in every state they found that the 90 percent number Quinnipiac represented as a national number is actually 51 percent.
A similar poll conducted nationally by Rasmussen with accepted standard of eight percent more Democrats shows only 49 percent of Americans favor gun control legislation.
Another thing I am not sure anyone is aware of is the fact that this legislation expanded the provisions of Obamacare that requires your doctor to determine if you actually own a firearm, which is reported to the FBI through HHS. The FBI would have been authorized to review your medical records to determine if you have had any injury to your head to include a minor concussion when you were playing football in high school. They can also review your health records to determine if you ever received any medication for an emotional, physical or psychological issue. All of your private medical records are made available to the government without a judicial review, a search warrant, or due process.
I guess we will have to disagree on this issue too, Dorothy. I strongly believe that everybody's personal and private information (to include my medical records) should remain personal and private, not subjected to government review.
Greg Knytych
New Hampton

Last Updated on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 11:58

Hits: 297

Biggest problem we have in this country is 'mainstream' media

To the editor,
It's been a tough week for the far left wing, racist, race-baiting American haters. Since the atrocities committed on Monday, April 15 by Muslim extremists, the so-called mainstream media waited just about 12 minutes after the bombing to proclaim it was most likely the right-wing American extremists. CNN was the first, followed by MSNBC, Diane Feinstein, All Sherpton and all the other unusual suspects. Then we have this for left-wing America-hating racist David Sirota writing, "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American."
What? Really? Someone want to tell me that's not racist? And he gets a pass from the press and our congressional leaders. If Rush or O'Reily said they hoped it was done by Muslims or African American's OMG! the sky would be falling. There would be federal investigations then on the hells of this. Tainted letters are sent to President Obama and Republican Senator Roger Wicker. Who sent these letters? Liberal Democrat activist Kenneth Curtis. What do we hear from the media? Silence. So once again we have these inconvenient truths that the far lefties have to digest.
In my own opinion, we have a bigger problem in this country than even Washington, its called the ?mainstream media". Until something is done about this cancer, the further decay and erosion of this once great country will continue.
Jay Kennedy

Last Updated on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 11:53

Hits: 315

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

Login or Register