Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Letters: The NRA is defending the rights of the people
Letters to the Editor
Recent letters to the editor
- Pick of the day: No due process for collaborators
- Letters: Our leaders agree: We'll be in trouble
- Pick of the day: Gun control by gun owners
- Letters archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Re: "One day, NRA will mean Not Relevant Anymore" (Feb. 17 letter):
The Second Amendment was not only for hunting. The sole purpose was so the people could protect themselves from the government because they knew and had seen how powerful and corrupt any government can become.
As is clear now, the government is not looking out for "we the people" any longer, but for how much money it can attain before the collapse of our country.
The National Rifle Association is looking out for the interests and safety of the people because our government is not. Its interests are our interests. "We the people" are a people of a free country, not a government-controlled hell.
It's the debt; all else is extraneous
By design, I am sure -- politicians are supported by the media's need to fill up hundreds of stations and thousands of websites and print pages with 24/7 content (most useless drivel) -- common sense is a thing of the past and the obvious is disregarded.
For example, the fact that the health care act is 2,700 pages long is all that is relevant. No piece of legislation with that much verbiage should receive a single "aye" vote.
Example 2: All of the government spending, programs and waste are constantly argued on their merits, with the resulting $16 trillion soon-to-be-$20 trillion debt mentioned only under duress and often even disputed.
The fact that totally confiscating the assets of the so-called rich would run the government for only a few months is not mentioned. An $85 billion cut over three years from a $3.5 trillion annual expenditure by the federal government is portrayed as a disaster.
With this type of dialogue, the obvious real impending disaster is unavoidable.
Machine guns aren't banned, just hard to get
Recently, several letters referred to fully automatic weapons (machine guns) as being "illegal" or "banned." Not so.
Although manufacturing has been curtailed, civilians actually may own machine guns or fully automatic weapons like the Thompson submachine gun or the Uzi. Certain restrictions apply, though.
First, one must compile a mountain of paperwork, including references from law enforcement and fingerprints, then submit to a federal investigation as thorough as any colonoscopy. At the whim of the federal government then, after paying a fairly substantial tax, you may be granted a license to own.
Actual buying is an even more expensive proposition. A review of the market shows prices for automatic weapons range from several thousand dollars to several hundred thousand.
Once you actually have possession, your responsibilities do not end. The automatic weapon must be housed in a secure facility and be kept in a substantial safe and be subject to inspection by federal authorities -- at their convenience, not yours.
Not to worry, though. Criminal activity by lawful owners of fully automatic weapons is, essentially, zero -- even lower than by holders of concealed carry licenses.
DONALD A. STADLER
The sequester looms; oh, my!
President Obama and Democrats have been using their usual scare tactics -- the world will end on March 1 if we don't give in to their demands:
Raise taxes on those wretched rich folks. OK, do it.
Get rid of corporate tax loopholes. Hey, go for it; let's send thousands more jobs to China.
But while we're at it, how about:
-- Doing away with the billions of dollars in foreign aid we send to countries that hate us.
-- Getting rid of the earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit. Millions of citizens pay no income taxes and still manage to get thousands of dollars back in tax refunds.
-- Removing from our national welfare rolls those with questionable disabilities.
And while we're at it, how about cutting some of those international fact-finding junkets by our elected officials? They're telling us to go green while they're flitting all over the globe, causing pollution and costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
Maybe on their next luxurious vacation, the president and first lady can actually leave on the same 747. Nah; ain't gonna happen.