Punitive gun controls only affect people who follow the law

In The Daily Sun,

In the Wednesday issue of The Sun there was a letter published that was presented by Robert Joseph. He claimed that he had come up with a way to have "effective" gun control and still honor the Second Amendment. My question to him is, what part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't he understand? My second question would be, "Who's going to pay for this massive bureaucracy?"

The one thing that gun control zealots have tried to get for decades is some form of gun registration so that they could then focus on gun confiscation, which is their dream. Then complete control of the population would be possible, as there would be no way for people to protect themselves from a tyrannical president, such as the one we have now. Mr. Joseph's idea would be gun registration but would just carry a different title as anyone with access to the information would have the names, addresses, etc. including the type and caliber of the guns in their possession. I would also ask Mr. Joseph if he knows how many in the criminal population would line up to take part in this scheme.

Another number he should ponder is the amount of crime in the cities and states with the strictest gun controls. If he bothered to check that fact maybe his outlook would change. We already have a laundry list of gun laws that if they were enforced would make a great deal of improvement. Massachusetts has a law against carrying a firearm unless you are licensed. This law carries a "mandatory" one year jail sentence. I would ask Mr. Joseph to research how often this sentence is carried out and how successful it's been in cutting crime in Massachusetts.

Punitive gun controls only have an affect on the people who follow the law, as the criminal element in our society ignores them. If every firearm in this country was confiscated it would only open up new business opportunities for these people in the black market. If the federal government can't stop illegals from crossing our borders how effective do you think they would be at stopping firearms. If political correctness wasn't stopping doctors from reporting people with mental illness and judges from being harsh with people who break the existing gun laws you would see a drop in some of incidents that have occurred in recent years.

I think at this time in our history when we are facing radical Islamic terrorists on our soil it is even more important that the population be armed. I would say to people that disagree, it is your privilege to stay unarmed, I prefer to be able to protect myself and those around me if the need arises. Remember, when seconds count the police are minutes away. This is in no way meant to disparage the police, it is just a fact of life.

Dave Schwotzer

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 208

Less than 1% of those who fail gun background check are prosecuted

To The Daily Sun,

The letter from Robert Joseph calls for gun owners to be persecuted and presumed mentally disturbed until deemed sane by the government. He says all gun owners must receive formal instruction and mandatory licensing. While this is a common sentiment among non-gun owners, it exhibits a total lack of understanding of the Second Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The meaning of these words has been adjudicated to mean exactly what they say by the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, municipalities across the country have been forced to issue concealed carry permits where they had refused to do so in the past, places like Chicago and Washington, D.C.

The problem with all gun laws is that only the law-abiding citizens will obey, and the criminal elements among us will not. Most of those people are already prohibited from having a gun. What new law would change that? If the government were to make it more difficult to legally own guns, the result will surely be many more illegal gun owners.

The proof of this can be seen in Connecticut. After the outrageous school shooting in Newtown, the state of Connecticut enacted a scheme where owners of certain rifles and high capacity magazines would be required to register said items with the State Police by Dec. 31, 2013. It is estimated that less than 25 percent of the gun owners did so. Now, as many as 100,000 people had been turned into criminals overnight. These people understand the meaning of the Second Amendment and will not comply with unjust laws. A very similar law has been enacted in Washington State with similar results.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The original intent of these words was intended to protect the people from the government. When the government requires onerous restrictions and difficult licensing requirements in order to enjoy their guaranteed civil rights, that is an infringement, and all the more reason to not comply with their unjust laws.

Another thing is about background checks. Less than one percent of gun buyers fail the mandatory background check. Less than one percent of those that fail are prosecuted for trying to obtain a gun that they are not supposed to have. Why bother? If every gun transfer was required to have a background check, the only way to know if the check had been done would be for the government to have a list of every single firearm that exists in the USA and keep track of exactly who has which! What could possibly go wrong with that? Canada has tried to do exactly that, and the program has fallen apart due to mistakes and the huge cost of such an undertaking. Multiply that times 100. Our instant check system gets overwhelmed by requests almost every weekend. They are not able to check every gun buyer, so they will just put them on a five-day delay. Again, Why bother?

Every time the president calls for more gun control, thousands more people go out and buy a gun. Every time he complains about the National Rifle Association, thousands more people join up. Control criminals and you will cut crime. Gun control laws are a waste of time and money.

Alan Moon


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 162

Here's chance to show all those smiles on 'user friendly' boards

To The Daily Sun,

This is in response to the letters Don Vachon and Bill Adario wrote to The Daily Sun on July 27 about me.

You guys make comments about being angry and spoiled because I did not get my way. That is not the case at all. I'm not happy because Warren Hutchins, before the Laconia Zoning Board, called my intentions and character into question. This is the fifth project I have done in the city and with all the difficulties I have encountered, you have not seen me at one meeting nor read about me in one newspaper addressing one issue.

I understand there are rules and I can honestly say I have followed them on every project. However, people with personal opinions on these boards do not have the right to impose their personal opinions that can affect a plan, otherwise we won't get approvals.

Let's talk about common sense involving our rental housing project here on Washington Street; we had to redo the plans more than three times. The very first time we went before the Planning Board with our plan we had met every regulation and should have received approval that night. We did not get approval that night because of some personal views that came into the conversation that had nothing to do with Planning Board rules.

Why wouldn't the city just require having one set of plans drawn up and placed at the Planning Department for all department mangers go by and review? Ask all the questions, discuss all the concerns, allow someone from the Planning Department to answer them, and so on. Once that process is complete then final changes to the plans can be made, right?

No, instead we have to make eight sets of plans with 12 pages per set on three separate attempts at a cost of $2,000, just so that everyone can look and re-look at the plans over and over again? How does this make any sense? To make matters worse, under someone's personal opinion and view of things (in order to get this plan approved) we are told not to cut down the three oak trees out in front of the project. One of the trees would hang directly over the roof of one of our building unit. Our position was that no trees should hang over a roof because of tree sap and other damages it causes to the roof. But we were told again do not cut the trees. What happens the very next fall season, the acorns fall from the trees and roll down the building roof onto the porch roof and nicely onto the tenant's brand new car. That causes $1,700 in damage to our tenant's car and then it cost me $600 to have the tree guy take down the branches. So are you saying I should be happy that it cost me $2,300 in damages and fixes because of someone's personal view, rather than a Planning Board's rule?

Now regarding the church property: Some of the people worry about me using the church for a short-term storage building and that Mr. Adario mentions in his article that he would not have purchased a home across the street from the church if there had been a storage building there instead. However, the church used the building for their own storage and the City of Laconia used the church property during Motorcycle Week for about 30 years to accommodate their storage and parking lot, and none of these uses fit the rules. So because it's the city, do the rules not apply? When some guy puts his trailer out front or someone chooses to practice riding their motorcycle or a tractor-trailer truck pulls in and parks for the night, I cannot possibly police all that activity, so I offer the fence to restrict the activity and some of you people say I'm a spoiled brat because I find a solution to the problem but again you don't like it.

Just a few examples that there are some people in the neighborhood that like my building because Sundown Condominiums will use it on the nights it's going to snow so that their parking lot can be cleaned up. It is also used as the bus stop where the children use the front overhang during bad weather and the parents park while dropping off and picking up their children for the school bus.

On Monday, July 27, I went to the City Council meeting in Laconia to talk about the need for change on these boards, the need to make this board more user-friendly. Mr. Hutchins was up for his Planning Board appointment and he was voted in 3 to 2 and the person who broke the tie said he is voting "yes" with the understanding the board is going to become more user-friendly. At the end of the meeting I asked if I could speak just for one minute to make an offer and the offer was that I would be the first person interested in sitting down at City Hall to meet with the planning chairman, the zoning manager, and any council member who wanted to participate, prior to getting in front of this "user friendly" Planning Board, to come up with a plan for this church property. (Reimagining Laconia). Well, here is your chance to show us all those smiles on all those "user friendly" boards.

In closing I would just like to say that this is my last letter, but Mr. Vachon you made a comment in your letter that maybe the businesses that do business with me should look at my angry letter and not do business with me anymore. My response to you is that's the exact reason you don't get a lot of business people on these boards, and if you did they would be more understanding of the needs of a business owner. Instead your best shot is to attack my business, one that has nothing to do with my real estate holdings, so talk about boohoo and threatening.

To Mr. Adario in response to giving back, I do not see you out and about cleaning the roadsides to make it a better place to live. I sponsor a person who starts in front of the St. Francis Home in Laconia on Court Street and he goes all the way up the Laconia Bypass stopping at every on and off ramp until he reaches just pass Sawyer's Dairy Bar twice a year spring and fall for the past three years. The first year we picked up more than 133 bags of trash and we separate the cans out for recycle. But I do that because I'm angry that people throw trash out the windows because they don't care about our community like I do. I just find it funny that last Friday after my letter in the paper my business had three calls from people of the city saying my letter hits home and they agree and to keep up the good work.

So you gentleman have a good day, this has been fun and I hope something good will come out of it to make the city a better place to live and do business in. And remember, anyone interested in any of my properties can buy them for the right price.

Peter Morrissette

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 202

Safe, well-planned transportation is fundamental to our economy

To The Daily Sun,

Building and maintaining our infrastructure is a core government function, yet Washington, D.C., has not prioritized overhauls to our roads and bridges for years. This week, the U.S. Senate begins work on a transportation bill to put a long-term infrastructure funding plan in place.

I am pleased Sen. Kelly Ayotte is taking the lead on this New Hampshire and national need. Her partnership ideas — bringing public and private resources together so that states are empowered to improve their own infrastructure instead of relying so heavily on federal funding — are innovative. Safe, well-planned transportation is fundamental to all communities and our economy.

Let's hope for effective, across-the-aisle, bipartisan support on long-term transportation infrastructure over these next months.

Linda Frawley

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 96

Even those who support abortion should be alarmed at killing for profit

To The Daily Sun,

In light of the recent allegations revealed through undercover videos of Planned Parenthood employees, I beg New Hampshire representatives not to jump into bed with your ideological colleagues, but rather consider the facts as have been presented.

If the videos are not forged, then consider what this means for our country. You have a taxpayer-funded entity which is performing abortions with a dollar signs in mind. The idea of placing prices on human organs (born or not) is simply undesirable.

Even those who support abortion, I doubt many would be at ease with the idea of killing the unborn for the purpose of making a profit — or finding a way to pay a non-profit CEO more than $500,000. I don't know many people who would be happy to discover we are being so generous to what is at best an ethically questionable country.

For those of you who support safe, legal abortion, really consider if you are comfortable with this sort of profitability. (What if this were the NRA?). If you won't support ending taxpayer-funded abortion, I plead with you to at least demand an investigation into the legality of of what has been revealed.
Thank you for your time, and good luck discerning.
Ryan Smith

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 195