Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: 2nd amendment

Dec.
22nd

GUNS: 2nd Amendment doesn’t bestow unlimited rights

Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution states: “A well REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

According to the online Merriam Webster Dictionary, one definition of “regulate” is ”to make rules or laws that control (something).”

So once we clear away the hyperbole and the histrionics, it is clear that laws and regulations concerning firearms are allowed under the Second Amendment. And no less then the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that while individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms, like most

Read more »

Dec.
15th

GUNS: I-594 conflicts with our natural rights

Re: ”About 1,000 gun owners rally against Initiative 594 in Olympia” (TNT, 12-14).

I am appalled at the lack of education displayed by some of the comments online. One commenter states we live in a democracy, and the minority must comply with the wishes of the majority no matter what that majority approves.

The founders of this country stated they created a republic, not a democracy. They knew democracy devolves to where three wolves and two sheep can vote on what to have for dinner.

The well-educated speakers at the “Will Not Comply” Initiative 594 rally made it clear that legislation

Read more »

Oct.
31st

ELECTION: Lantz misstates Angel’s vote on gun bill

Re: “Angel favors guns over DV victims” (letter, 10-29).

It’s appropriate to deny violent offenders possession of a gun. The claim, however, made by former state Rep. Pat Lantz, that HB 1840 is “common sense legislation,” is far from accurate.

The problem with this bill is that it goes way too far in denying people their constitutional rights. People who have committed no crime would be subject to felony possession charges if they didn’t surrender their guns. This could be caused by an order of protection, or restraining order, which can be granted without any proof of a crime

Read more »

April
30th

GUNS: Background check is just common sense

Re: “Gun background checks may see ballot” (TNT, 4-29).

Asking for a background check on someone who is trying to purchase a gun seems like common sense. I am unsure as to why one would be opposed to such a thing in the first place.

I don’t know whether it is the fear of being on a “government list,” in which case I do not believe that the government is so weak that it needs people to buy guns to create some sort of list. If the government wants to track a citizen down, it has the power to

Read more »

April
30th

GUNS: Be careful about backing initiative

Re: “Gun background checks may see ballot” (TNT, 4-29).

The question every person should ask is whether enhancing background checks benefit the public without infringing upon our rights.

To this I say yes, but only to a point. A person being sold a gun is being trusted with a weapon of great killing potential. Society deserves a chance to make sure that person can be trusted with it.

But just as you cannot arrest someone for a crime they may commit, background and foreground checks need to be reasonably limited.

Just as a poor credit report excludes those who

Read more »

April
24th

GUNS: 2nd Amendment wasn’t an afterthought

In the early 1980s, Nancy Reagan started the “Just say no to drugs” program. Now two states have legalized marijuana. At the same time, laws were just starting to favor gay rights but same-sex marriages were a dream. Now several states have laws allowing same-sex marriage.

Whatever your position, these changes did not happen overnight. It was a slow, methodical progression of legal battles, minor victories and a change in public opinion. Now we have gun-control being fought over, specifically  addressing background checks. No one can understand the NRA’s feverish fight over something so small, but it is the first

Read more »

April
22nd

GUNS: Congress stands idle while Americans die

On 9/11, nearly 3,000 people died. As a result, our government launched two wars at a cost, according to a Harvard study, of $4 trillion to $6 trillion. In 2012, approximately 32,000 Americans died from gun violence. As a result of those deaths, our government has done nothing.

After the 9/11 deaths, Congress passed major legislation which, according to critics, undermines the Bill of Rights and legally allows governmental intrusion into citizens’ privacy. Congress also created Homeland Security, which daily affects thousands of Americans.

After the 2012 gun deaths, Congress cannot even pass a law requiring gun purchaser background checks

Read more »

April
22nd

GUNS: Silly argument against background checks

Re: “Senators ignore American public on background checks” (editorial, 4-19).

The fact that Congress was unable to pass a bill simply expanding background checks for gun purchases, following the massacre of 20 young children, is disheartening and shameful. The idea that we shouldn’t pass any level of gun reform whatsoever because criminals don’t obey laws is an absurd logic, and it would never be an acceptable argument against any form of crime reduction not directly related to guns.

There will always be people who drive drunk, steal, burglarize, manufacture drugs, commit arson, rape, kill, etc. So does that mean

Read more »