Posted 12:58 am Sunday, March 03, 2013
Send to Kindle
Walter Williams column did not advocate slavery
I was outraged by a recent letter writer’s response to a column by Walter Williams, so I dug my Feb. 20 paper out of the recycling bin to see what could have made him so virulent. I found nothing to support the idea that Walter Williams is “for slavery.” The very fact that he is black would surely negate that thought.
I also read 100 quotes of Lincoln’s on the Internet and conclude one can pick out whatever suits one’s view and use it to demean a conservative. (Sadly, the liberal press can even use a bottle of water.)
All any of us really want is to stand on our own two feet and not depend on the government.
Why don’t won’t people stop fighting the Civil War and use the equal opportunities afforded us and enjoy the freedoms we still have? That way, Nikita Khruschev’s 1953 statement that “We will bury you without firing a shot” will not be fulfilled.
J. Pfaff
Mineola
I also read 100 quotes of Lincoln’s on the Internet and conclude one can pick out whatever suits one’s view and use it to demean a conservative. (Sadly, the liberal press can even use a bottle of water.)
All any of us really want is to stand on our own two feet and not depend on the government.
Why don’t won’t people stop fighting the Civil War and use the equal opportunities afforded us and enjoy the freedoms we still have? That way, Nikita Khruschev’s 1953 statement that “We will bury you without firing a shot” will not be fulfilled.
J. Pfaff
Mineola
GUN CONTROL
Much has been written about gun control, lately, some of it rather strange. So what about gun control? Disregarding our Constitution, what are the driving forces and objectives for more gun control? In general, there are three: to satisfy emotions, to reduce crime, or to disarm the citizenry. Historically, has any gun control achieved the objectives?
I simply can’t say regarding emotions, except that most of the current proposals for gun control make me emotional. Reduce crime? It’s rather strange that places in the U.S. with strict gun control have higher crime rates than those areas with looser gun control. That can apply to countries. Look at Mexico. How about the U.K. — very difficult for a citizen to own a firearm and, yet, crime is rising alarmingly.
How about the “reasonable” measure of registering firearms and their owners? History clearly shows that governments use that stepping stone to ultimately disarm their citizenry via confiscation. Sadly, Canada and Australia are heading in that direction, now. What if that confiscating government has (or develops) bad intent? Look at Nazi Germany and the USSR for an answer.
What about our Constitution? Some politicians loudly declare that their gun control proposals won’t restrict our Constitutional “right of hunting and self-defense.” But that simply is not what the Constitution is about. Just a little review of the Federalist Papers recording the development of our Constitution shows that the drafters intended an armed citizenry — in part, to prevent our country from becoming a Nazi Germany or U.S.S.R.
So, how to achieve crime control? How about assuring an armed citizenry and demanding serious, swift, thorough prosecution of criminal misuse of firearms? Interestingly, there are many such laws on the books. And there is clear evidence in parts of the U.S. that when these are prosecuted, crime drops.
Leon Ward
Holly Lake Ranch
I simply can’t say regarding emotions, except that most of the current proposals for gun control make me emotional. Reduce crime? It’s rather strange that places in the U.S. with strict gun control have higher crime rates than those areas with looser gun control. That can apply to countries. Look at Mexico. How about the U.K. — very difficult for a citizen to own a firearm and, yet, crime is rising alarmingly.
How about the “reasonable” measure of registering firearms and their owners? History clearly shows that governments use that stepping stone to ultimately disarm their citizenry via confiscation. Sadly, Canada and Australia are heading in that direction, now. What if that confiscating government has (or develops) bad intent? Look at Nazi Germany and the USSR for an answer.
What about our Constitution? Some politicians loudly declare that their gun control proposals won’t restrict our Constitutional “right of hunting and self-defense.” But that simply is not what the Constitution is about. Just a little review of the Federalist Papers recording the development of our Constitution shows that the drafters intended an armed citizenry — in part, to prevent our country from becoming a Nazi Germany or U.S.S.R.
So, how to achieve crime control? How about assuring an armed citizenry and demanding serious, swift, thorough prosecution of criminal misuse of firearms? Interestingly, there are many such laws on the books. And there is clear evidence in parts of the U.S. that when these are prosecuted, crime drops.
Leon Ward
Holly Lake Ranch
BUDGET CUTS
Obama is supposed to be president of and for all American citizens but he is not even trying. Instead he continues to do nothing but campaign for more votes from dependent and desperate people, including illegal immigrants. He is using the budget crisis and small “sequester” cuts to gain politically rather than trying to solve a serious problem which is out of control government spending and debt. Sequester is not even a real cut — but only a small reduction in increased spending. He is crying wolf and directing spending cuts to cause the most pain and panic to departments, agencies and citizens who can afford them least. He is simply using the spending cuts to advance his self-serving agenda of bigger government.
Bigger government means more power for him and greater control over every American. Ironically the worse he makes things for the average American, the easier it is for him to buy their group votes with more and bigger spending programs.
It is a vicious, growing cycle as more and more voters are dependent on more and bigger government.
All this is at the expense and reduction of our liberty, freedom and prosperity.
Harry Bergman
Frankston
Bigger government means more power for him and greater control over every American. Ironically the worse he makes things for the average American, the easier it is for him to buy their group votes with more and bigger spending programs.
It is a vicious, growing cycle as more and more voters are dependent on more and bigger government.
All this is at the expense and reduction of our liberty, freedom and prosperity.
Harry Bergman
Frankston
