More guns only make us less safe

To the editor:

Finally, some sanity and reality on the Review-Journal’s op-ed page (Sherman Frederick column, Jan. 20). His peashooter is no match for an actual tyrannical government’s army and police. Ask those who were at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Only the delusional believe this government is deterred in any way by the civilian arsenal of 300 million firearms, nor are real bad guys or criminals. The only real winners are the gun and ammo merchants of death.

Your family isn’t safer with that gun in the nightstand. Home burglaries and access to family weapons is where the crooks and crazies get their guns. Fewer guns, not more, will make us all safer.



Original intent

To the editor:

Mike Ross’ Jan. 19 letter (“If tyrants have them”) is entirely correct that the Second Amendment was meant to enable us to overthrow a tyrannical government. It’s too bad many Americans and most news media let their emotions overcome their research in their interpretations of our Constitution.



Can’t make this up

To the editor:

Nevada citizens are represented by a political dynamic duo right out of Damon Runyon. Sen. Harry “The Pen” Reid and Assemblyman Steven “The Enforcer” Brooks. Did the Tea Party make them do it?



It’s insurance

To the editor:

Jim Rideout’s Jan. 18 letter was on the mark about the cost of war being the reason our country is in such financial trouble. The figures are so large most of us can’t relate to terms in the billions and trillions. We as citizens are not consulted, nor is our opinion wanted.

President Bush got us into a needless war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein tried to kill his father. Saddam was indeed a bad person, but this was a personal war for Mr. Bush. It cost America great deal in money and precious lives that left many families without sons, fathers and husbands.

In addition, they tell us that Social Security and Medicare are broken. The fact is, the government used that money for wars and should have left the money in the so-called lock box that it really wasn’t in. I’m incensed that those programs are called entitlements. I feel that they are more of an insurance program. I paid into both – still pay for Medicare – and I am entitled.

Some folks pay into these programs and die before they get any money, while some live longer and get money just like many insurance programs.

A new poll shows that 75 percent of people feel there should be term limits. Congress certainly won’t vote for this because they have such great benefits. All of us should take matters into our own hands and vote for new people – even if it means voting for the other party.



It’s an annuity

To the editor:

Your newspaper and every politician I have ever heard refer to Social Security as an entitlement. Social Security is not an entitlement, it is an annuity.

Entitlements are such things as welfare, food stamps and Medicaid – things people get for nothing. Social Security is something I paid into almost my entire life, and I expect payment from it at a certain age.

If I had paid into an annuity for 50 years, like I did with Social Security, with compounded interest I have no idea how much I would have in my account. In addition, if the president of a life insurance company had taken my annuity, given me an IOU and spent the funds, he would be in jail now.



Doing his duty?

To the editor:

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid recently claimed that he merely “misspoke” when he said the damage and carnage caused by Hurricane Katrina was “nothing in comparison to what happened to the people in New York and New Jersey.”

Let’s review the facts: Hurricane Katrina caused 1,833 deaths and $145 billion in damage, while Sandy caused more than $80 billion in damages and 132 deaths in the United States.

Did Sen. Reid also misspeak when he took his oath of office to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office” and to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

Perhaps that might explain why for more than three years now he has failed to get a federal budget through the Senate that he controls, or why he allowed excessive government spending with trillion-dollar deficits for four consecutive years that resulted in growing the national debt to record levels.

Nevada and America don’t want our senators to misspeak on the issues. Nor do we want our politicians to be ignorant, deceitful, delusional, make excuses, blame others or hold stronger allegiance to their political party than to We The People and the nation.

If that is how Sen. Reid intends to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office” and to “support and defend the Constitution,” then perhaps now is the time for Sen. Reid to resign from Congress – before the people demand it.



Letter that will not die

The editor:

Bob Sullivan’s Jan. 17 letter (“Silence the minority”) sounds like 1930s Germany.

Silence those who don’t agree with you? Are you frightened of the truth? Scary stuff.

That is quite a laundry list of people Mr. Sullivan proposed ridding the world of.

What has happened to free speech?




To the editor:

The “Stuffed pork” letter of Jan. 13 asserted that Sen. Harry Reid amended the “fiscal cliff” bill to include provisions for Hurricane Sandy relief. The alleged timing wouldn’t have allowed anyone to read, let alone discuss, these provisions.

Such conduct would, if proved, appear to constitute a serious misuse of his leadership position. My searches of the Congressional Record and the Internet revealed no specific evidence that any such amendment had been proposed or voted upon.

The letter further alleged that the “relief” proposal included several unrelated provisions, which would’ve been nearly half of its total. I haven’t been able to locate any relevant detail within the Congressional Record.

In my opinion, substantially better disclosure of congressional proceedings is needed.



News Headlines
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like