Editor, Times-Union: I am a veteran of World War II, and was in the S.W. Pacific. I am a Life Member of the NRA. I bought a .22 caliber rifle with a 5-clip magazine when I was 12 years old. I was not a hunter, only hunted twice. I shot sparrows and targets. Most boys my age or a little older, also had a .22 rifle. We were not a problem.
We have a population in the United States of 275,000,000 or maybe more. One percent of 275 million is 2,750,000. I can't believe that we have that many people in the United States that are violent gun offenders; that use a gun to murder, rob, etc. So the Clinton Administration wants to disarm the 99 percent or more of the U.S. citizens who have never been involved in any gun crimes. Why? It isn't crime control, with our more than 20,000 gun laws: federal, state and local. It is gun control.
We have always had people killed in one way or another, and we always will have. You can't eliminate it. There are risks in life, there always have been and there always will be. We do what we can do to cut down the risk. In an auto accident, one life lost is too many, but we don't eliminate cars. In a plane accident, we don't eliminate planes. The same goes for swimming, boating, trains, motorcycles, bicycles, etc. But for guns, with the less than one percent who misuse guns we should disarm the 99 percent which are not a problem? We know why Hitler did it, as the following quotes show:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." - Adolph Hitler
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a Civilized Nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolph Hitler (1935)
The Second Amendment is for our protection, if our government should try to establish a dictatorship. In our American Revolution, we were British citizens. Citizens of the Crown, we revolted against our own legally established government because they were trying to eliminate our freedom. Great Britain issued an order to disarm all of the colonists, but it didn't succeed.
Wallace W. Huffman, Warsaw
Deficit Control
Editor, Times-Union: I was dismayed to read Gary Gerard's column last Saturday (Sept. 18) with his criticism of those elected representatives who frankly state that the national debt is money that "we" owe.
In a democratic form of government, we elect our representatives to act for us. Their actions are our actions. If we do not like the actions they have taken for us, we vote them out at the next election. But for better or worse, the government's acts remain our acts.
Our country has a massive national debt. This has been incurred primarily by borrowing money from the years 1974 through 1994 that we did not have, and spending money on government functions, benefits or services without raising revenue to pay for them. That debt is now over five trillion dollars, and absorbs hundreds of billions in annual interest payments.
By maintaining that it is not "our" debt, and therefore we do not have to pay for it, opinion leaders like Mr. Gerard are dooming our generation and the generations to follow to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of interest annually for as far as the eye can see. If we do not have the courage to at least attempt to reduce that debt now, when projections indicate we can do so over the next 10 or 15 years without a tax increase, then we are not only fooling ourselves, we are very clearly and explicitly robbing our own children and grandchildren.
Both the strength of our current economy and the current political climate give us the opportunity to reduce the national debt without tax increases. If we do not address this problem now, the problem will never be addressed. It is that simple.
The painful truth is that in our country, the national debt IS our debt. Perhaps citizens of banana republics and third-world dictatorships can take the position that Mr. Gerard espouses upon a change of government, but our country should live up to its responsibilities, work to reduce the debt which has accumulated, and allow not just our generation but generations to come to reap the benefits of that debt reduction.
Jay A. Rigdon, Warsaw Note: Allow me to assuage the letterwriter's dismay. The point of the column was simply this: Deficits were created not because "we" (taxpayers) paid too little, but because "they" (elected officials) spent too much.
Offensive Sign
Editor, Times Union: In response to Mrs. Newswanger's letter regarding the offensive sign at the Pit Stop on Center Street. I feel that Mrs. Newswanger gave the company what they wanted her attention. And now that she has written a letter to the paper she also did advertising for them. I personally do not find the sign offensive since the sign is just stating what vacuum cleaners do LITERALLY! I mean come on everybody has a vacuum that sucks the Pit Stop just chose to advertise it! And if your vacuum doesn't suck then it's time to buy a new one. I also don't feel that it was shoved in her face, she chose to look at the sign it isn't like they wrote it on the windshield of her automobile. Another point that I have is that it isn't a public sign the Pit Stop owns that sign and what they want to write on it is their business.
I don't feel that what they wrote on the sign is cute, but I do find it quite funny!
Janet Randall, Mentone
Priorities
Editor, Times-Union: I would like to commend Matthew Trier on a great letter and a superb way of pointing out some people's screwed-up priorities. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who are so concerned about the animals that must be put to death also think abortion is acceptable.
As for Dennerick Flores and David Hoskins, surely you do not celebrate Christmas as it is Christ's birthday or Easter since it is the day he arose from the grave which you probably don't believe.
Abortion kills and one of the commandments is "Thou shall not kill," but of course you don't believe in a book that is 2000 years old.
Apparently you do not believe in the Constitution of these United States either because we are given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as long as we do not infringe upon the rights of another. But you probably don't believe the unborn have rights. "God" (with a capital G) said, "I knew you even before you were born," which makes me believe they should have rights from conception. Murder is a federal crime in these United States and abortion is murder. Your kind of thinking is destroying this nation.
Where would you be if your mothers had chosen abortion? Don't you think that everyone should have the same right to life that you did? Abortion is also irresponsible and selfish.
Deanna Newton, Warsaw
Dalton Neighbors
Editor, Times-Union: To the Dalton employees... We read with respect and compassion your letters. We have no desire to see anyone lose their job. Our problems are with the owners and upper decision-making management of Dalton, not any of you. We want the owners to take care of the problems that exist! Our intent is to be able to live peacefully and healthy in our homes. Any improvement can only help benefit all of us, including you.
Dalton is no longer locally owned, therefore we wonder if the new owners are inclined to be as interested in what is happening to our community as we are. You, the employees, know better than anyone the improvements that can and should be made.
