Letters to the Editor

Gun debate

This photo provided by Rep.Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore. shows Democrat members of Congress participating in sit-down protest seeking a a vote on gun control measures, Wednesday on the floor of the House on Capitol Hill in Washington.
This photo provided by Rep.Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore. shows Democrat members of Congress participating in sit-down protest seeking a a vote on gun control measures, Wednesday on the floor of the House on Capitol Hill in Washington. AP

Gun debate

In response to the horrible tragedy in Orlando, the anti-gun forces want to restrict gun purchases by people on the “no-fly list.”

That wouldn’t have stopped the Orlando shooter because he wasn’t on the list.

Several things are wrong with such an approach:

Many people are afraid of Islamic terrorism coming to our country.

The anti-gun folks think disarming our citizens will somehow make the threat go away.

That makes no sense.

Denying Second Amendment rights to someone suspected, but not convicted, or being “watched” is not constitutional.

What groups might be added next? Veterans? Certain politicians? People with long hair? People with funny accents?

It’s a slippery slope that could allow a future administration to add to the list anyone who might disagree with it.

The various federal agencies dropped the ball on the Orlando shooter.

Certainly we can all agree that there are many people who should not be allowed to possess firearms.

But the fix should not be a knee-jerk, politically correct response with far-reaching unintended (or maybe secretly intended) consequences.

James Withaeger,

Arlington

 

The Second Amendment reads: “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.”

Two key words are “well regulated.” Even if we consider all citizens to be militia, which is questionable, the amendment does say a militia should be well regulated.

When the Constitution was written, the authors did not envision weapons that could cause mass slaughter.

Times have changed, and weapons have changed.

We have reached a point when we must increase regulations regarding the purchase of certain types of weapons and the people who can purchase them.

If politicians refuse to take some action to put common-sense regulations in place, they need to go!

Ailene Gibson,

Fort Worth

 

I find it hard to believe that one guy could kill 49 people and wound about 50 before someone with a gun or any kind of weapon stops him.

So I think this country needs to have better security around bars and clubs. You would think, though, out of roughly 100 people at a bar, that no one had a gun to defend themselves against the guy.

Curtis Townzen,

Fort Worth

 

The U.S. Senate voted to uphold the Second Amendment!

What a crock to imply that senators voted to assist radical Islamic terrorists in obtaining weapons!

Miles Manning,

Fort Worth

 

Shame on our elected leaders who refuse to even entertain common-sense gun laws such as mandatory background checks, eliminating gun show and internet loopholes and connecting with terrorist databases like the no-fly list.

It looks like the National Rifle Association has spent its money well and we have chosen poorly.

Don Kinard,

Arlington

 

Democrats, don’t cry about background checks on gun sales between private individuals.

It was a certain Democratic president, related by marriage to a current candidate, who raised the cost of federal firearms license from $60 to $600, driving “kitchen table” dealers out of business.

So don’t whine when you’re driving small businesses out of business and have unintended consequences.

David R. DeSpain,

Fort Worth

 

Please understand, I think the attack in Orlando was horrible.

But I haven’t heard of anyone aggressively defending themselves (and the others) trapped in this kill zone!

If you can’t think of any way to launch a defense in a nightclub, give me a call, and I'll offer a few ideas!

Terry L. Neumann,

Arlington

  Comments