Editor’s note: The following letter is in response to the letter “Euell Responds To Nielsen” by Thomas Euell, published last week.
Personal attacks weaken argument and lend nothing to discussion, sir. I won’t respond to cheap attacks like “pseudo-intellectual.” There is no argument that new gun laws will make all gun violence go away, but merely to point out that our efforts have been weak, with too many holes in existing gun laws. Moreover, I see little point in requiring gun dealers to strictly observe existing laws, while allowing “private sales” to whomever to exist and continue unregulated without any requirements.
Now, “How do you prove that a crime wasn’t committed?” The follow up to that could be, “How do you know (using the same logic) that drugs are plentiful and can be purchased on almost any street corner?” My debating team, no doubt, would recognize the irony of the analogy.
I’m not going to comment on your political references, only suffice to say, that there is in place a “shared” responsibility with Congress, who has responded to special interests like the NRA, and that they have a responsibility to see to the health and safety of American citizens, but have chosen to shirk their responsibility by failing to come up with any plan to reduce gun violence.
Your obvious dislike of socialistic programs triggered my comment about “sending your check back” suggesting you have not made the connection between Social Security and socialistic programs.
I would make you aware, as many people are not, that Social Security was a part of the Socialist Party platform and its author was that party’s presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs.
The notion, and it is always presented during better times, that if the money that was invested in Social Security, was invested in Wall Street, everyone would be “wildly” much better off. Well, I thank God that President Bush did not get his way, because the money would have been lost in unprotected accounts in the last recession.
It is my opinion that I prefer a government guaranteed account at a lower rate to the risks of a speculative, unprotected account at a higher rate.
Social Security had proven to be the most successful government insurance program in history, until our Congress recognized that it had a surplus every year and “borrowed” from it for their raises and shortfalls in the general fund and left I-O-Us with no plan for repayment.
Richard Nielsen, Royal Palm Beach