Archive for Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Letter to the editor: Ashamed of inaction

February 20, 2018

Advertisement

To the editor:

Right now, I’m ashamed and embarrassed to be an American. Now, after multiple school shootings and unacceptable deaths of children, all that is offered by our leaders is condolences to families of those lost children. My God, what has this country become? I can’t believe our country’s leaders can’t devise a solution to stop these mass killings! Is it really that difficult to devise a solution if our leaders truly care?

Our country has severely regressed in morality, ethics and the basic concern for safety of Americans’ lives. Especially the lives of our children.

Comments

Bob Summers 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Firearms were more accessible in the 50's and 60's and 70's.

What happened?

Congenital Liberals have overwhelmingly infested government inculcation centers and government entities like the FBI.

The FBI had the killer, but let him go.

These inculcation centers are flooding society with people incapable of behaving well.

Kendall Simmons 1 month, 4 weeks ago

What percent of Americans owned semi-automatic weapons in the 50s-60s-70s?

And, no, the FBI did NOT "have the killer, but let him go".

And, no...liberals would NOT be the ones inculcating people into the gun society we have today. Surely you realize how illogical your thinking that way is.

And why on earth would you logically think these mass shooters are all liberals?

Ernie Lazar 1 month, 4 weeks ago

What makes you believe that firearms were "more accessible" in earlier decades?

If (as you claim) our problem is exclusively "liberals" -- then presumably you want to deny them the right to vote because if "liberals" are our ONLY problem and they exclusively are causing death and mayhem in our society,then there is no reason to allow them to vote OR to run for or be elected to public office --- right?

Daniel Kennamore 1 month, 4 weeks ago

"What happened?"

Politicians sat on their hands instead of addressing the gun violence issue for half a century.

Dennis Domer 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Bobby,

Prove that firearms were more accessible in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Prove that the change has to do with congenital liberals rather than NRA congenital conservatives.

Prove that this change doesn't have to do with importation of hundreds of thousands of weapons over the past 20 years as well as a misreading of the constitution.

Prove that your so-called inculcation centers actually exist.

DD

Kendall Simmons 1 month, 4 weeks ago

That's NOT "proof". Good grief. It doesn't even make any sense.

The fact you'd take the John Birch Society's founder's opinion from decades ago as "proof" merely says something about either your logical thinking skills or your willingness to be honest.

Ernie Lazar 1 month, 4 weeks ago

I don't think ANY rational person on this planet would describe former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as "a liberal" -- would you?

This is NOT a left vs right controversy. Hoover (whom NOBODY describes as a liberal) declared that:

(1) "I think strong laws should be passed restricting the sale of guns, but when you try you run head on into collision with the National Rifle Association."

(2) Christian Science Monitor, 7/3/65. p2 – Interview with Hoover

CSM reporter :

“Do FBI records indicate that the free-and-easy access to guns is a contributing factor in crime? Would stricter control over gun sales help the police and the FBI in dealing with homicides?”

HOOVER REPLY: “Yes to both questions. A review we made of some 8,500 willful killings reported by police agencies in 1963 revealed some type of firearm was used in 56% of them. Guns were used in 56% of murders in our cities, 62% of suburban slayings and 68% of rural killings. Almost 60,000 armed robberies and over 22,000 aggravated assaults in 1963 were committed with a gun. Of the 168 law-enforcement officers slain by criminals in the four year period of 1960-1963, all but six were killed with some type of gun, 131 of them with handguns…Certainly the control of the sale of guns will not eliminate willful killings. But a study of murder motives indicates that the ready accessibility of firearms enables persons to kill on impulse and while in a rage. Many homicides no doubt would be reduced to mere assault if the most deadly of all weapons—the gun—were not so easily obtainable.”

Brock Masters 1 month, 4 weeks ago

I am proud to be an American. I love my country and it’s people. Sure we are not perfect, sure we have failed in some areas, but these are not reasons to be ashamed. Instead, as Americans, instead of wallowing in shame, we need to man up, come together and fix what is wrong.

The LTE writer is right that we have regressed in morality and ethics, but this is a complex issue without an easy fix.

As free people, who is to say what is ethical and what is moral? Society is responsible for its mores, it’s ethics and what is acceptable and unacceptable. Our country is too fractured to do this. In my view, part of the blame lies with moving to a central government and away from state rights. States should be able to define their identity and thus, give people a choice of not only where to live, but how to live. Let birds of a feather flock together instead of forcing people to live together when there is no shared values or sense of morality.

We are an angry nation and the violence is a symptom of it. To cure ourselves we must look at the root cause of the violence and not the symptom or tool used to carry it out.

Everything has become too political. Instead of working together for solutions each side tries to make political gains. We can blame our government but the blame lies with us for attacking one another while we let our elected officials do nothing but get rich at our expense.

P Allen Macfarlane 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Guns are designed and used for one and only one purpose - violence and most of the time, death to a living thing. I am not against the use of firearms for acquiring food or even trophies. It is the insane policies and political action by this perpetrator that has stymied any sensible control on the availability of firearms, ammunition, and other devices used for the purpose of turning a weapon into one that can fire automatically, thereby improving the efficiency with which it can kill, primarily other humans. I submit that the NRA should be considered a terrorist organization for promoting violence against our fellow Americans. Anybody witnessing the children who have survived or escaped such violence will testify to the terror they experienced. That is the goal of a terrorist - to inspire fear. The NRA inspires fear through its steadfast belief that there should be no restrictions on firearm availability.

Brock Masters 1 month, 4 weeks ago

You’re entitled to your beliefs but the 2nd amendment was intended for citizens to possess firearms that, duh, could kill other people. It is why people often buy guns - to kill someone who is threatening them or their family with malicious intentions and the imminent threat of death or grave harm.

How about this - let’s make a deal. When you can convince the anti-gun politicians, celebrities, and wealthy to give up their armed security I will consider giving up my firearm. Until then, I have as much right to protect myself and family from harm with a firearm as they do. Want to put limits on the type of weapons I can use? Then make sure it applies to every American regardless of whether they are a politician, celebrity or rich person.

Kendall Simmons 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Actually, the 2nd Amendment was written loooong before the existence of, oh, say, AK-15s. And it references a well-regulated militia.

And where on earth do you get the idea that "It is why people often buy guns - to kill someone who is threatening them or their family with malicious intentions and the imminent threat of death or grave harm." Seriously??? How about some actual evidence of this claim?

Now, if you'd said they were bought for protection...for safety..if needed...I could understand that. But YOUR claim? Proof, please. Thank you.

Brock Masters 1 month, 4 weeks ago

The citizens at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment owned and used military grade weapons. Regardless, there is no limitation in the 2nd amendment on the type of arms people can own. It is similar to the 1st amendment where the printing press was in use at the time of its passage. And yet, free speech protection has been extended beyond the printing press.

Of course there is no data to back up my statement - only anecdotal evidence. Look at the reports of people who have used a gun to protect themselves. Many invaders have been killed and I have not seen a report where a gun owner shot someone in a non-vital area of the body. People who have guns and who train practice shooting center mass where they are not only more likely to hit their target but where it is most likely to hit vital organs such as the heart and lungs.

The other evidence is the type of guns bought. People are buying high power pistols and ammo with maximum stopping power - euphemism for killing.

Now show me your proof that people who buys a gun for protection is not buying one that is designed to kill.

Justin Hoffman 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Kendall's comment has now been nominated for the ignorant comment of the year award. What do you think people buy guns who want to protect themselves for? To throw them at the bad guy?

Ernie Lazar 1 month, 4 weeks ago

The earliest known legal commentary on the meaning of our Second Amendment is contained in St. George Tucker's Notebooks. Tucker was an influential Virginia Judge who delivered law lectures shortly after the Second Amendment was ratified. Tucker thought the Second Amendment was a concession made to Anti-Federalists to address their fears that the state militias might be disarmed.

No state constitution during our founding era, asserted a right to keep arms. Nor did the Second Amendment declare the right to keep arms apart from the obligation to bear them as part of the militia.

In 1787-1788, seven of the states that ratified the proposed Constitution did so on the condition that Congress give consideration to adding several amendments if and when it went into effect. These states proposed 124 amendments, NONE of which mentioned the right to bear arms but several of which mentioned the fear of a standing army. When Madison sat down to write what became the Bill of Rights in the summer of 1789, those 124 proposed amendments served as the basis for his deliberations. He distilled from them an essence of 12 amendments, subsequently reduced by the states to 10. The Second Amendment represented Madison's attempt to respond to the fears of a standing army by assuring that national defense would reside in the states and in militias, not at the federal level in a professional army. The right to bear arms derived from the need to assure that state militia could perform its essential mission.

Daniel Kennamore 1 month, 4 weeks ago

"Tucker thought the Second Amendment was a concession made to Anti-Federalists to address their fears that the state militias might be disarmed."

And that's still the core of the issue.

Gun nuts think their rifles are somehow going to be effective against drone strikes, tanks & napalm in their fantasies about fighting the evil guberment. It's a symptom of being easily manipulated by the NRA and Russian propaganda and sadly no amount of logic can get through to them.

Bob Smith 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Terry, we'll all come down to the bus station and wave when you leave for Venezuela.

Kendall Simmons 1 month, 4 weeks ago

So that's how YOU would make something better, Bob? Give up and run away???

Bob Smith 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Reading skills, Kendall. I said I'd wave to Terry as he is leaving. I'm staying put.

Daniel Kennamore 1 month, 4 weeks ago

The sad thing is that even though the majority American's support some common sense compromises we could pass tomorrow, the gun lobby has gun nuts so brainwashed they can't see past the end of their toys.

Just look at the comments on this site on the daily. Any time an article or opinion piece even hints at gun control you have people on here spouting the same tired NRA and Russian propaganda.

You even have people like the one a few above this that desperately try to spin gun ownership as some for of patriotism.

It's sad, but gun nuts love their guns more than innocent lives...thankfully it seems we are finally getting the momentum to ignore that vocal minority.

Justin Hoffman 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Hearing those evil NRA voices again Dan?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...