Your View: GOP opposes reasonable dialogue on guns

Jan. 24, 2013 @ 02:55 AM

Regarding comments in last Thursday’s Enterprise by seven N.C. politicians about Obama’s proposal to reduce gun violence:
• The three Democrats spoke of the need for a common sense response to the national problem.
• All four Republicans took stands against the president’s proposals, using the often repeated and senseless reference to Second Amendment rights.  It is senseless because that right is acknowledged by just about everyone, and is in no way being threatened.  It’s like resisting a small tax increase by claiming your right to own property.
There’s no logic ... unless they’re talking in code to survivalists or extremists or ignorant and gullible people about the government coming to their houses in black helicopters to take their guns away.
The constitutionality of such reasonable limitations as is being proposed has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, including the most conservative justices.  Where do these Republicans think the line should be drawn between reasonable and unreasonable limitations?  Rep. Coble evidently thinks that requiring background checks for gun purchasers at gun shows would be unreasonable.  I wish Sen. Burr, or anyone, could explain how President Obama’s proposal would infringe on Second Amendment rights.  What about the limitations we now have, like not allowing civilians to buy shoulder mounted rocket launchers?
Should that be repealed because it infringes on the Second Amendment?
Or do they think the restrictions now in place are just right?  It seems that a reasonable discussion is not something most Republicans want.
HARRISON RUCKER
High Point

Bush decisions killed innocent Muslims
It is not easy for us to forget and forgive if someone attacks our soil and kills our innocent people. We can’t forget the Pearl Harbor attack and the attack on 9/11 that killed nearly 3,000 people.
The Japanese paid the price for Pearl Harbor. Who did for 9/11? George W. Bush government blamed al-Qaida. It might be right and bin Laden had to pay the price. Bush took quick action to bring justice to bin Laden and all those who helped him.  It would have been easy to catch bin Laden, but Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush did because his government was not a popular government and he wanted to stay four more years in government.
Bush knew that if he ordered to catch bin Laden and Hussein and brought them for justice, then he couldn’t win the next term election. To stay in government, he preferred to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush gave to Americans thousands of military casualties, an untold amount of Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent. The war is still not over. Here at home, stress, unemployment are making American life very hard and miserable. People are so desperate, domestic violence increased. People have not got enough money to pay their bills, buy clothes for their beautiful children and pay their bills.
Did anyone dare say or write why Bush did not try to catch bin Laden and Hussein and bring for justice? Why did he attack Afghanistan and Iraq and make our life miserable? We know that Hitler killed innocent Jews, but Bush killed innocent Muslims more than Jews in Afghanistan and Iraq wars. George W. Bush gave problems to working class Americans.
Believe me or not, one day Bush has to answer to my question.
MUSHTAQ AHMED TAHIRKHELI
Archdale

 

Your View Polls

What do you think of President Obama’s actions and proposals regarding gun control issues? In 30 words or less (no name, address required), email us your thoughts to letterbox@hpe.com. Here is one response:
• The more available guns are, the more violent our society is.  Obama is correct in trying to do something to curb murder.  Good for him. ... He has lots of support.

Roadside emergencies in harsh winter weather can present life-threatening situations. Are you prepared? How do you prepare for such possible situations? In 30 words or less (no name, address required), email us your thoughts to letterbox@hpe.com.