June Letter To The Editor

Senate Republicans have just blocked legislation that would help keep weapons out of the hands of those on the no-fly list.  People on that list are deemed to be threats to national security.  Evidently it keeps us safe to prevent them from flying, but not from having guns??  This legislation has the overwhelming support of Americans.  It is supported by a large majority of Republicans, of gun owners, and even a majority of NRA members.  Call me crazy, but shouldn’t Republican voters be asking themselves exactly who the politicians they support are really working for?

When it comes to defending the lies, scandals and crimes of Republican legislators, I always hear the same tired arguments like “all politicians lie,” “the Democrats have scandals too,” and “they all take money from wealthy donors.”  So the two political parties are just about the same, right?  Then why not give the Democrats a try?  When it comes to Republicans voting, evidently the worst Republican is still far better than the best Democrat.  Just what is it that is so horrible and devastating about electing Democrats that would make you support someone like Donald Trump?  The economy?  History shows much better economic times under Democrats than Republicans.  National security?  Really?

Perhaps you were raised Republican and have always voted Republican, but today’s Republican Party has devolved into something that should make even the most loyal Republican take a new look at the Democrats.  The lessor of two evils?  Maybe, but the difference is huge.

Share

May Letter To The Editor

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution ends “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  Had the intention been for this to be an absolute, unalienable right, like Life and Liberty, then this would be the complete Amendment.  But there is more.  It begins with “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”  This statement of fact was true at the time.

So, why is this first part included?  Certainly, the Framers were not in the habit of throwing in completely unrelated facts.  It’s obvious that the need for a militia, which at the time would require members to bring their own weapons, necessitated the right to bear arms.  This begs the question “What happens if a militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state?”

Now, before all you gun owners get “up in arms,” I am not necessarily against private ownership of weapons.  I am against the wide-spread abuse of the 2nd Amendment perpetrated by those who take the last part out of context and use it to prevent ANY kind of regulations or limitations, no matter how reasonable.  Disagree?  Ask yourself it it would make you nervous to learn that your neighbor was building an arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in his basement.  If the answer is ‘yes’, then you agree that society has the right and obligation to impose at least some level of limitation on private ownership of weapons.

Share