A+ A A-

In gun control politics, Government has a credibility problem

To the editor,
Many thanks to Mr. Rodgers for pointing out last week what an idiot I am. It's okay, I get that a lot. And I don't have any problem at all with the truth of anything. But excuse me if I continue to have questions when the facts have changed over time. It shouldn't matter what kind of gun was used and I'm willing to drop the whole thing if some one can explain this. On December 15, NBC News and MSNBC were running the report that first responders found the AR-15 in the trunk of the car. Here is the clip if anyone cares to watch it. (http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495) Shortly after that, agents from the ATF and such arrived and locked down the crime scene. Many days later, the new version of what happened came out with the rifle as the main gun that was used. This from the people who walked hundreds of rifles over the Mexican border in operation Fast and Furious for some twisted political gain. To walk just one gun across a parking lot would be a piece of cake. It's one of the oldest tricks in the world, to throw down a gun and alter a crime scene. When it comes to the politics of gun control, the government has a credibility problem.
As to the question of why would anyone want a military style rifle, It is simply because we can. That right is most clearly defined in the 1939 Supreme Court case U.S. V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, where the arms referred to as in "the right to keep and bear arms" are described as weapons suitable for military use that are in common use at the time. That is the way it has always been and that is the reason why AR-15's are the most popular gun in America. That case also draws the line about what guns are civilian legal and which ones are controlled by special permits, like automatic machine guns and short barreled rifles. You can't blame the NRA for that.
Alan Moon
Tilton

Last Updated on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 23:58

Hits: 326

In push for greater gun control, Obama’s goal isn’t to save lives

To the editor,
President Obama says, "If it only saves one life...." Then he promotes gun restrictions that will kill more law abiding Americans than they save.
If it were really his goal, President Obama could do many things that actually save lives.
Closing the border and removing the incentives for people to come or stay here illegally would annually save hundreds of lives and thousands from becoming violent crime victims.
He could lead the charge against smoking which kills approximately 449,000 Americans annually, including approximately 44,000 who die from second hand smoke (source: Centers for Disease Control). Thus, about four times as many people are killed by America's 43 million smokers as by America's 80 million gun owners. Guns also often save innocent lives, smoking only harms people.
He could lead the charge against alcohol which causes about 100,000 deaths annually. And, according to an NIDA report, about half of vehicle accident deaths and about 60 percent of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
I don't advocate outlawing smoking or drinking, but presidential leadership for reduced smoking and drinking could save lives.
Increased CAFÉ standards are true "blood for oil." Many studies, e.g., by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, indicate that higher CAFÉ standards increase highway deaths by about 2000 deaths annually. A Department of Transportation study indicated that each mile per gallon increase results in approximately 7,000 additional deaths. Thus, president Obama's increased CAFÉ standards from 27.5 to 54.5 MPG will cause approximately 189,000 additional traffic deaths (the equivalent of about 18 years' worth of gun homicides).
President Obama could save lives by enforcing current gun laws. Most crimes are committed by people known to law enforcement or their associates, but the politicians can't or don't care enough to make law enforcement protect law abiding people from these criminals.
In 2010 only 44 of the 80,000 people who lied (when trying to purchase guns) on background check forms were prosecuted!! Overall Federal gun prosecutions are down 40-45 percent from the Bush years. Enforcing existing laws could save lives!
If President Obama displayed concern for unborn Americans, if he promoted adoption, if he promoted more responsible sex, then just a 1 percent reduction in abortions would save as many lives as are taken annually by guns.
With so many things that he could do to save lives, why does President Obama only focus on gun control, restricting the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens and probably making more innocent victims than it saves?
It seems that gun control is the focus, not because it saves lives, but because it supports President Obama's political agenda of increasing government power and reducing citizens' rights.
Don Ewing
Meredith

Last Updated on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 23:53

Hits: 544

Pitman’s Freight Room is an outstanding asset for Lakes Region

To the editor,
The Lakes Region has yet another outstanding asset.
Friday evening, January 25, I attended for the first time, a performance at Pitman's Freight Room in Laconia. What a great idea that was (probably my wife's). I had periodically seen local publicity for the music venue but hadn't yet made the leap to give it a try. The Bruce Marshall Group was advertised for Friday and although I had not researched their credentials, the thought of some good live blues was appealing. So, my wife and I went with a couple of friends.
The performance by the Bruce Marshall Group in that rustic almost living room BYO setting might have been the most enjoyable show I've ever seen. I don't say that lightly. Years ago I had season tickets for four different major venues in the Los Angeles area. In years more recent I attended numerous outstanding shows in NY, NJ and PA and have many great memories of fantastic quality performances. Maybe it's partly because it was in my own back yard, maybe it's partly because it took me by surprise, maybe it's partly because of the friendly hospitality of Dick and Connie Mitchell (the Freight Room proprietors), or maybe it was really the combined musicianship, showmanship, sincere gusto and real world wholesomeness of this four man group that produced one great song after another that was exactly what I wanted that night. Whatever. These are subjective things.
I am anxious to see the Bruce Marshall Group again, and also to sample more events at Pitman's Freight Room. Wonderful!
David M. Zebuhr
Gilford

Last Updated on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 23:46

Hits: 325

I’ve never seen or heard of a ‘no questions asked’ table a gun show

To the editor,
Saturday morning and I'm hoping everyone is safe and warm after last night's snow. I'm reading the paper on my PC today. You see I'm retired and do not have to go out.
So, I see James Veverka is presenting himself as an expert on of all things gun show. He tells readers these gun shows sometimes have tables of "no questions asked". Gray loop holes, I think he said. It's ridicules to think criminals will always find ways to get guns, he says. This is very strange to me because I've been to hundreds of gun shows in my life and never once have I seen or heard of a "no questions asked" gun sellers table, not once. Makes me think James is blowing smoke. Let me be clear so that non gun owners that have never been to a gun show can understand. Any gun dealer selling firearms at a gun show must do a background check just like they do at their store. No exceptions, no if ands or buts.
Now as for James' anti NRA rant, let's be clear that yes, most NRA members are for background checks. Most states have background checks in place but what the NRA questions is the wisdom of allowing the federal government to run such a system. James probably would agree that on many other subjects having the Feds run some huge invasive records on private citizens would be a bad idea. After all political pressures from all sides have in the past led to abuses. I just have to ask James, why is it ridiculous to think criminals will always get guns? I give readers the example of, Chicago. Drug gangs, criminals, have made Chicago the murder capitol of America. These guys are not going to gun stores or gun shows to get their guns yet they seem to have an abundance of them. History has shown that people, for good or evil can get anything they really want. Prohibition could not stop the importation of booze. The war on drugs has been ongoing for more then five decades and so far failed. During WW2, partisans all over Europe got guns to fight back against the invaders. Really now how does James propose to prevent criminals from getting guns?
What is ridiculous is this uninformed, misleading left-wing misinformation campaign being waged by the anti-gun crowed. Most of those advocating this have never been closer to a gun then at the movies or on their TV's. Still they present themselves as experts after listening to one politician or another telling them "the facts". Most of which are laughable. So James, why not try getting the facts from, say the FBI crime statistics or Justice Department studies. And remember, no fair culling these files for only the facts you want to use.
Steve Earle
Hill

Last Updated on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 23:39

Hits: 312

Should we also count Ronald Reagan among the anti-gun loons?

To the editor,
Today I write with questions for the true looney tunes, talking about revolution. I realize that you live in the past, but this is just plain nuts. Do you intend to revolt against our true militia, you know the Army Reserve and the National Guard who do an outstanding job protecting all our citizens...good luck with that one. As far as gun control is concerned, nobody is advocating taking away anyone's hunting rifles or hand guns used for sport or self-protection. What is being advocated is keeping military style weapons out of public hands. No one needs them to hunt or protect themselves. Your own favorite Supreme court Justice Anton Scalia said, "M16's and the like have no place in the 2nd Amendment." Also, your favorite President, Ronald Reagan was against assault weapons for public use. And don't forget he and others were shot by one. And then there is the idea that our current President shouldn't have Secret Service protection. How crazy is that! In my 61 plus years, all of our Presidents and their families have had Secret Service Protection even after they leave office.
I hear these same wing nuts that refer to Democrats or Human Rights advocated called loons. I hear a couple bird names that fit these people that are doing the name calling, how about as in Jim Crow. And some that I know and see around the area that resemble old buzzards sitting on their perches. Picking apart the Constitution to suit their agenda.
Regarding immigration, unless you are 100% Native American, then you are an immigrant yourself, and are of multiple races and cultures. So who are you to make the decision on who gets deported. I understand the need to register aliens and have them pay their fair share of taxes, which most of them do. I agree we need to do something for them to become legal citizens so why don't we all work together to get them there, instead of making it more difficult. These same people seem to think that this is a Christian country only...wrong! We are a melting pot for all. To quote John Lennon, Give Peace a Chance.
Ray Corliss
Laconia

Last Updated on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 23:20

Hits: 581

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

Login or Register

LOG IN