Letters to the Editor
Nita Martin
Published Letters: 271 Editor's Choice: 62
-
Their cold dead hands...........
[Read the article: Why Democrats dumped gun control]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a reason gun-control has not been the hottest Democratic Party issue, along with so many other issues that should be at the center of an informed national debate.
That reason is Iraq. It has consumed us for the past five years, crippling this country's ability to do anything positive for itself. We are hemorrhaging our nation's lifeblood, it's financial well-being and it's reputation. Trying to stanch the bleeding has been a full time job. It is the biggest issue with Americans and it will be until this madness is ceased.
I'm sorry, but any political activity outside the Republican Party has been the politics of attempting damage control and putting out fires on behalf of the American public. Look at the accomplishments of this administration and you will see the undoing of decades, even centuries of building safeguards for national health, safety, security and well-being. Including gun control.
Any debate on what Democrats have done about gun control is ludicrous in view of the Republican death grip of Congress until 2006. What exactly could a minority party do in the face of the NRA-cozy majority party?
I could envision a land where the right to bear arms didn't mean that any sociopath could go into a gun store and buy a semi-automatic pistol with no background check and no waiting period. The "passion" you described the pro gun faction as having has brought us to the brink of near "vending machine" availability of guns in some states.
There is something fundamentally wrong when you need a prescription to treat asthma, but you can buy an assault rifle.
Yesterday, as the debate began, I heard pro-gun advocates argue that the tragedy of Virginia Tech would have been avoided if the TEACHERS HAD BEEN ARMED. They blamed the anti-concealed weapon policy of the college. How idiotic is that! Just because criminals refuse to obey gun laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. It means we should remove the guns from the criminals to whatever extent we can. The tragedy would have been avoided if the SHOOTER had NOT been armed. I am at a loss as to how a rational person could fail to see that.
This tragedy was the result of a young man who had exhibited signs of emotional instability or sociopathy, who was here on a student visa, and who was able to walk into a Virginia store and buy a semi-automatic pistol as easily as I can walk into Walmart and pick up a pair of pantyhose.
And, I fail to see how hunters need assault rifles to whack Bambi, by the way.
The image of gun control issues has too long been Charleton Heston hoisting a gun and proclaiming "from my cold dead hands". It should now be the image of a classroom strewn with bloodied corpses whose cold dead hands reached out for help which was not there. Because some people think the gun problem is that everyone doesn't have one.
-
To have or have not
[Read the article: Why Democrats dumped gun control]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Weezie...
I am with you and New Deal Democrat in spirit. This government has made me almost paranoid (just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you) about the erosion of my rights under their fascist regime.
However, the problem seems to be that discussion of gun CONTROL always ends up being an extreme issue that has only two propaganda positions. Anybody, anywhere, anytime can get all the guns they want...or we're going to take away everyone's guns. This should be about regulation. And regulating something as lethal, and as misused as guns are shouldn't be a bad thing. I take your point about who is taking away my freedoms. And my reluctance to give up the right to defend myself is as real as yours.
But when the Bush police, sanctioned by the Bush courts and covered by the Bush Justice Department take me away...what am I going to do...shoot my way out of it?
I live in the Philadelphia area and it seems that almost daily there is a shooting. On the streets. Kids are killed. And I mean toddlers. They are not going to be better served by having the right to tuck a gun in their diapers. And the parents whose right to bear arms might have protected them under the theory of guns-for-protection advocates? They are just as often responsible for shooting deaths when their children discover the loaded weapons of inept, irresponsible, negligent parents who have them lying around the house for "protection".
The government has already been able to tap my phone, pick me up without a warrant and drop me off in a foreign dungeon interminably. It is undermining my retirement, jacking up my prescription drug prices and the cost of all it takes to keep my life moving. It has removed my right to sue those who have negligently harmed me. It advocates polluting the air I breath and denuding the parks from which I derive pleasure. And so much more. In other words, it has systematically stripped away my future and quality of life. Why on earth would I worry that it might keep me from having a gun under my bed when a cluster of thugs breaks down my door while I am watching CNN with a Coke in my hand, instead of my pistol?
I don't know what the answer is. I only know that it lies somewhere between no one can own a gun, and everyone can own a gun. If it's everyone....then justice can be defined as "the last man standing".
-
Two words for Dana Perino
[Read the article: Mama said there'd be days like this]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ya think?