A+ A A-

This interpretation of Second Amendment is not at all scholarly

To the editor,,
Dear Mr. Wiles,
It would truly be amusing if it weren't so sad that you chose to speak on behalf of Don Ewing. Where to begin in answering your diatribe, aka letter, in response to my query of weaponry for private citizens.
By your verbiage alone you allow us insight as to your feelings about the NRA, gun manufacturers, the Second Amendment and President Obama, just to name a few. Demeaning President Obama with all of your inappropriate and misleading labels is discouraging and disrespectful of his office.
Aren't we lucky as Americans to have a First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which allows you and I to have free speech in an open society. Just try to picture if we were living in a country where citizens are "muzzled" or imprisoned because they dare to speak out and voice their opinions.
What truly puzzles me is your so called interpretation of the Second Amendment. At best it is neither scholarly or in-depth and at it's worst totally misleading.
Although you feel that you had to interject your opinion, I am still awaiting an answer from Don Ewing to my recent query.
Bernadette Loesch

Last Updated on Friday, 17 May 2013 11:48

Hits: 357

Why is target on law-abiding gun owners instead of criminals?

To the editor,
I sometimes wonder at things people say in their letters. For instance the other day James Veverka said something like, he was going to throw up if he heard the term law abiding citizen or law abiding gun owner. Now why in the world would that cause him to feel all nausea and sweaty. Is it the law abiding part? Funny turn of a phrase because I'd be more sickened by a non law abiding phrase such as, drug dealing felon or cereal murderer and things of that order.
Clearly James just can't stand it when his cherished liberal concepts get challenged. Taking exception to my description of references as a clutter, he dove into a study by John Hopkins Medical to support his contentions. To that I have to say, ho hum! John Hopkins is hardly an unbiased source. Like most big medical facilities it is 85 percent liberal and its studies are not trustworthy, at least by me. If you want an accurate report, I suggest James and the readers look to The Bureau of Justice Statistics. It says that gun crimes are down 75 percent since 1993.
To hear the left tell their story you would think it was we had seen a 75 percent rise in gun crimes from that time until this. Only about 12 of Americans are aware of the truth so effective has the fear and misinformation campaign waged by them and promoted by their followers who believe MSNBC, Saturday Night Live, Move On and the Colbert Report are real news shows.
The BJS also reports that criminals get their guns from family members and by stealing them as I wrote in my previous letter, which James had so much to say about.
As for all those gun crimes in Chicago, who does James say is committing them? That's right too, James omits that fact. Criminals, that's who, not law abiding gun owners or honest citizens, criminals. And not one prevision of the left's proposed laws targets these drug gang criminals. Everything targets the private gun owner. Their design is to abolish the 2nd Amendment and an individuals right to self defense. Not one prevision of the new laws would protect one child, one school, one gun free zone which we have seen attract the crazy, illegal gun possesor looking to create havoc, suffering and sorrow. The great compassionate left doesn't want to solve this problem. They want issues to run on, dramatic issues. They want to put their soap box's on children's graves and tell you that if only you elect them they will fix everything.
They lie.
Steve Earle

Last Updated on Friday, 17 May 2013 11:45

Hits: 441

Let's not run out of ammunition before the law breakers do

To the editor,
I know Ms. Loesch wants Don Ewing to respond to her latest and most urgent request in her recent letter, but I thought I would try and assist her in her search for rationality. Since it is rarely found in the leftist lunasphere, I thought that like Mighty Mouse, I'd try to come and save her day.
As far as I know, folks aren't allowed to "arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction". North Korea has em and Iran wants them desperately. So, other than some far right wing extremists, as identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who may be armed with a few nuclear powered rocket launchers, our beloved government doesn't allow us to keep WMD type arsenals. That would be much to the chagrin of unrepentant mad bomber, Bill Ayers and his "perps turned profs" buddies, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin. Those would be just two of the radical 60s, retro "Occupy Wall Street" wack jobs who are teaching our children their anti-capitalist/Christian, secular humanism/moral relativism, collectivist crap. Not content just to seduce men into destructive activities, these femme fatales now are intent on leading our youth into destructive, warped socialist ideologies, but I digress.
Why would folks need "high power weaponry", you ask. Ah, would that you meant that question rhetorically. However, I know you mean that sincerely, which succinctly encapsulates the bizarre world of "modern day liberals" (even if you aren't one). I think Thomas Sowell summed it up nicely in one of his recent columns. Limiting the amount of "firepower" one is allowed to have will only "ensure that the law abiding citizen runs out of ammo before the criminal does". I would suggest Ms. Loesch, that you might want to change your position since you are siding with the likes of Diane Feinstein, N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama and "just shoot your shotgun through the door" Joe Biden. Are you seriously okay with having bureaucrats decide how many rounds one is allowed to have in a magazine? If multiple invaders to one's house enter encumbered with "high powered weaponry", is it fair or rational or safe for the homeowner to be restrained by a certain limited amount of rounds?
So you see, the answer is really just so darn simple and sensible. Let's ensure that law abiding citizens have enough firepower so that they do not run out of ammunition before the law breaking intruders do. President Obama's desire for more unenforceable and ineffective gun control laws has nothing to do with saving the lives of children. As a liberal, socialist, Marxist, egomaniacal central planner or whatever he has evolved to become, he detests the fact that our Constitution is a document of limiting powers. Rather by fiat, executive order or plain old Chicago thuggery, he wants to diminish a vital building block of our secure liberty, the 2nd amendment. How else to ply this constitutional republic into statist putty in order to prepare it for the "fundamental transformation" into an "Agenda 21" entity or some "sustainable" facsimile thereof. You know, like Karl Marx's goal of the "abolition of all private property". Just one of the many Marxist ideals that so tickled our dear leader's fancy during his formative years.
Bernadette, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the media that you likely use to gain knowledge and perspective has deceived you. They no longer work as objective watch dogs in order to keep citizens informed of government shenanigans. Here is a timely example for you to savor. A recent Justice Dept. study has revealed the following statistics: firearm related homicides in the U.S. have declined annually by 39 percent from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. This is corroborated by annual FBI statistics. And this has occurred while gun ownership and concealed carry has increased precipitously. Sadly, your favorite media site has most likely hid this information from you.
So, to summarize, citizens need "high power weaponry" to maintain an advantage over criminals who would seek their untimely demise. Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment must be kept intact to keep a looming, tyrannical government from knocking down the wall of liberty built by our founding fathers. At least that is my answer to your exasperated request for an answer. I hope I have been of some assistance in bringing you clarity or at least some food for thought with regard to this issue.
Russ Wiles

Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:55

Hits: 388

Ayotte's vote represents the worst of Washington politics

To the editor,
Senator Ayotte:
While I appreciate your response to my note, I find your explanation rather weak. I attended your "town hall meeting" in Tilton, where you said basically the same thing and then failed to respond directly to my and many others' concerns regarding your vote. It was cowardly of you to ignore the "elephant in the room" that one questioner referenced and instead respond to a clearly political question about Benghazi.
What I wanted to ask was how you justify ignoring the will of 90 percent of your constituents? After all, you are an elected member of our representative democracy who has a responsibility to respect the will of the people. When do 90 percent of us agree on anything and what is your justification for ignoring our consensus on background checks?
From your response and your op-ed, you appear to think we are ignorant; we are wrong about background checks and you are right about our "broken" system. But, how is it broken if, 76,412 people were referred to the BATF and thus denied access to guns? Isn't this what background checks are designed for? Don't we want to first make it harder for criminals to get guns and then to prosecute them whenever we can? And, when you were N.H. Attorney General, did you have the resources to follow up on every case referred to your office? Does the BATF have the resources they need to follow up on every NICS referral and do you support providing them with those resources? You write in your op-ed that ads are poisoning this important discussion. Yet, your claim that the Grassley-Cruz amendment is somehow "bi-partisan," lacks the seriousness this issue deserves. What is bi-partisan is the will of the 90 percent of the people that you ignored; 270,000,000 Americans disagree with you.
In Tilton, I wanted to explain that your vote represents the worst of Washington politics; a political system where power begets power, money begets money, special interests always prevail, and the will of the people is increasingly irrelevant. With every day and every vote Washington moves us closer and closer to a Plutocracy. Is this the legacy you want?
Steve Merrill

Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:52

Hits: 338

Career Partnership Program not possible without biz support

To the editor,
The Greater Meredith's Career Partnership Program is a collaborative effort between the Greater Meredith Program and the Inter-Lakes School District. The program offers job shadows, internships, guest speakers, volunteer and community service programs and a one day Job Fair.
This program would not be possible without the support of local businesses. We would like to thank one business in particular, Mame's Restaurant in Meredith. John Cook, owner of Mame's, has always been a big supporter of the Career Partnership Program through job shadows at his restaurant and also in the aeronautical industry, as John is also a pilot. Mame's had a "Music Fun Fest" on May 2nd. Local musicians Julia Velie; Phil and Jan Sangueldolce; Chris Mega; Chris Kelly; Dr. Steve Kelley; Julie Krisak and Matt Towle performed that night from 6-10 p.m. Community members came in to enjoy a nice dinner during that time. John Cook donated 50 percent of all dinner proceeds back to the Career Partnership Program to help our local students experience more career opportunities.
We wish to thank John, all of the musicians and community members who worked so hard to support such a great cause. Thank you so very much.
Rhonda M. Hanaway, Executive Director
Career Partnership Program
Greater Meredith Program
Inter-Lakes School District

Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:49

Hits: 284

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

Login or Register