Editor’s note: The following letter is in response to Thomas Euell’s letter “Guns Are Not The Problem,” published last week.
When I was in college and part of a debate team, it was generally understood that if one departed from the issue and resorted to personal attacks, he or she has departed from differences on an issue and have shown themselves to be intellectually impotent.
It would be difficult for even the most astute among us to connect differences on, in this case the issue of guns, to how my recent article with facts was understood or the grade level of the person rebutting without regard to content.
No one is suggesting that any new law will, in and of itself, prevent all the recent and terrible tragedies we have all read about and witnessed on television. We differ on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, where you consider the authors wrote it for an individual’s right to bear arms rather than the right of the people to form militias.
The sad truth is that the sales and proliferation of guns — about 300 million nationwide — has not reduced crime or made us feel safer, and the indiscriminate sales have had an impact on the responsible gun owners.
What is being suggested is a responsible approach to gun ownership by closing the “loopholes” in existing laws that permit the private sale of guns at gun shows.
Private sales permit the indiscriminate sale of guns to anyone without any background check and prevents law enforcement from having the ability to track such weapons, I am a proponent of such measures because I believe it is in the public interest for law enforcement to be in a position to protect law-abiding citizens.
Will this prevent unstable or terrorists, domestic and foreign, from carrying out all their attacks on our citizenry? Only the naive would think so, but in saying so, that does not mean the gun show loophole or the indiscriminate sale of guns should continue, or that weapons of war should be sold to ordinary citizens.
I believe that if such changes are implemented, it would not solve all the problems presented by guns, but if such changes saved one life, I think such changes are reasonable and do not interfere with responsible gun ownership.
Finally, I do not deny that there are things in “socialist” platforms that I’m inclined to favor, but I think the way I was described was at best, a cheap shot in your weak argument, which lost focus at times and just rambled on through drug issues and the DEA, which was not a part of the discussion.
I have no idea who Mr. Euell is, or more importantly how old he is, relevant to my conclusion, but I found his distaste for all things socialistic interesting!
I, on the other hand, openly favor some socialistic programs, like Social Security, Yes, Mr. Euell, Social Security was and is a socialist program!
The head of the Socialist Party and candidate for president of these United States was a Socialist named Eugene V. Debs, who had as part of his party’s platform Social Security. Mr. Debs ran afoul of the law and was put in jail, but Franklin Delano Roosevelt adopted Social Security as part of the Democratic platform and won.
My point, Mr. Euell, if, as you indicate, you have great disdain for all things socialistic, and you would not want to be “guilty by association,” I would expect you to distance yourself from a “socialistic program” by sending back your Social Security check in protest!
Richard Nielsen, Royal Palm Beach
Mr. Nielson comes across as self-important with an irritating writing style. He adds unnecessary comments and observations that confuse the point of his missive.