- Home
- Solano News
- US / World
- Opinion
- Living
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
4,092
2,432
Letter on gun laws misses target
In a March 7 letter (“Restrict gun ownership? A very bad idea!”), the author assumes U.S. policy would follow Australian policy some 20 years ago when all guns were confiscated, resulting in a higher rate of home robberies.
Why should he think U.S. policy would result to such extreme measures when the general debate involves eliminated public access to assault weapons and handguns to those with criminal records? Does the author believe he needs an assault weapon to protect his home or to protect himself in public?
He states that armed personnel should protect our schools, which is a good idea, but who’s going to foot the bill when many public schools are already struggling? Who from private or volunteer sources would be willing to provide security?
He mentions “Democrat-run-Chicago” has strict gun-control laws and a higher crime rate while “areas” allowing concealed weapons have lesser crime, but fails to define “areas.” Does he mean other major cities or suburban communities? The latter will almost always have a lower per capita crime rate regardless of gun laws due to a higher ratio of police officers to citizenry.
He claims President Barack Obama is deliberately destroying America. That assertion does not fit the facts. The stock market hit an all-time high earlier this week. Unemployment as of today is at a four-year low and the housing market is recovering.
Is he implying that Republicans are responsible for these gains? Let us remember, under the administration of President George W. Bush, the housing market was decimated by the real estate industry, the primary factor for the 2008 recession. The Republican mantra of “deregulation” allowed this to occur. No one was minding the store as millions of Americans were offered and accepted loans they couldn’t afford to repay.
The author complains about the Democratic “legislative dictatorship” in California. Like it or not, the inevitable demographic changes in the state will continue to move California in that direction. I would suggest he consider moving to a state more compatible with his political “sensibilities.”
Robert Spriggs
Fairfield
Discussion | 5 comments
The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Recent Posts
- HPV vaccine cut infection by half in teen girls
- Obama urges ‘bold’ nuclear cuts in Berlin speech
- Obama making plans to tackle global warming
- As fires rage, feds cut funding on prevention
- School district, police to meet with students, parents about truancy
- Actor James Gandolfini dies in Italy at age 51
- Experimental program at SCC to benefit those holding bachelor’s degrees
- Assemblyman Dan Logue to challenge Garamendi
- Lynch Canyon could be open year-round
- County budget hearings start Monday
- Fairfield 7-year-old golfer making his mark
- Family: Country singer Slim Whitman dies at age 90
- Kmart in Fairfield closing in September
- DREAMers should wake up
G-ManMarch 16, 2013 - 2:36 am
The stock market is. Nothing more than a receptacle for the funny money US is printing..Unemployment numbers are skewed and really should reflect the true number of out of work..we don't even count those who've given up looking..andeven then if a 10th of a percent improvement gets you excited so be it..you're a cheap date..as for housing..well it had nowhere to go but up..but still down what? 26% or so from it's high..as for GOP and housing for the umpteenth time Clinton started the big home owner pitch..Bush continued it and a Dem Congress in power from 2006-2010 signed off on it...
Reply |rlw895March 16, 2013 - 10:11 am
Good letter, only I don't think anyone should have to move out of California to find better politics. What's needed here is a new brand of Republicanism that can attract voters from our demographics without smoke and mirrors. It needs some intellectual leadership and not simply marketing experts. The California Republican Party might become a new political party. That's the way it's supposed to work here: Parties respond to the demands of the voters, or they go out of existence. And before I get jumped, "demands of the voters" does not mean "income redistribution" as Republicans choose to think of it (the masses using their political power to take from the rich and give to themselves). It means many things, but in terms of "income redistribution," it means a more progressive tax system and investment in public institutions, programs, and infrastruction that improve the lives of Americans generally. It means making the American experiment work. It means patriotism.
Reply |PatriotMarch 17, 2013 - 6:24 am
Politicians are only puppets of the almight powerful: The Banks. Until we end the choke hold the Banks have on us and our economy will we be on the right track!
Reply |The MisterMarch 17, 2013 - 9:18 am
Yes, the banks are the tools of control over the people and nations. "New brand of Republicanism" or new Democrat or finger-pointing on other such picayune platitudes only serves to obfuscate the real oppressors. The default, or even willful, ignorance of people to not know this only strengthens the control they have over us.
Reply |rlw895March 17, 2013 - 11:12 pm
No argument here. Divide and conquer has been mastered by the minority that runs the country. They own the Republicans and the Democrats won’t buck them as long as the people are not organized politically to demand action. Looking for leadership, and it’s more likely to come from the Democrats, though it is possible that “new Republicanism” could be built on that platform.
Reply |