Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,I enjoy reading Mr. Sundin’s columns. I agree with some of his points of view, especially on ethanol and the need to maintain our infrastructure. However, when he said that the Constitution needs to be “updated,” I felt compelled to write a rebuttal. There are several things I would like to comment on, but the most important is his attack on the Second Amendment. Every sane person hates to see people killed needlessly by firearms. Mr. Sundin’s opinion is that if the government put more regulations on firearms, less people would be able to get them, and then less people would be killed by them. His point was that the Second Amendment was only for a time when militias were necessary, and that the increased firepower of weapons today makes owning them by the general public unnecessary and dangerous. Mr. Sundin quoted some unreferenced statistics that the homicide rate is 100 times lower in some countries that have more restrictive firearm policies and that firearm deaths are two-thirds as numerous as automobile deaths. I find both of these unbelievable. I have heard statistics from both sides, and feel they are meaningless in this debate. There is a higher principle involved than statistical analysis. I am convinced that Mr. Sundin and some like-minded politicians have lost their faith in mankind to govern themselves. They think our only hope is a government that can make our decisions for us. His argument isn’t about guns, it’s about government control. These politicians use fear to achieve their goals of big government. The notion we would be safer if average Joe citizen couldn’t have a gun is not logical. Laws that deprive ordinary citizens of rights because of the irresponsible actions of a few have no place in the United States of America. While it is true that a semi-automatic weapon in the hands of a psychopath can cause a lot of damage, a citizenry living in fear and allowing power-hungry politicians to tell them what they can and can’t do is a far greater tragedy. Shane PorterStillwater, Okla.
Dear Editor,First off, I voted for Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario. I put one of his campaign signs in my yard. I don’t claim to know what’s going on at the jail. But the jail’s Taser policy first caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit. Now the feds are canceling a contract for holding prisoners – one that’s lucrative for the county. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refuses to do business with jails that use Tasers. I wonder why.Garfield County’s Taser policy is costing taxpayers plenty – not only in legal fees, but in lost revenue. Apparently some jails function without Tasers. Why not ours?Ed ColbyNew Castle
Dear Editor,Well, another “photo op” for Bush, he went to Iraq but not to Baghdad, where “his war” is, playing it safe. I listen to C-Span, Channel 17, every morning. One man called in and said, “Why didn’t Bush go in like a man, instead of a secret visit?” Bush is good at secret meetings. I notice very few smiles on the soldiers’ faces. They know why Bush came, soon to hear from Petraeus whether he says the unwinable war can be won. He already said this war cannot be won militarily.No matter how many lives are lost, Bush will continue to stay the course. Dumb.Mildred BaumliCarbondale
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.