Letters to the Editor Oct. 1

  • Discuss Comment, Blog about
  • Print Friendly and PDF

I had a personal talk with Mayor Bob Crowell and also the Senior Center's director, Janice McIntosh, and they both agreed with me that the center should be operated as an apolitical center. At least that was what they said to me in person and on the phone with the mayor.

Now I ask you, what part of apolitical do you not understand? I might not be the sharpest tool in the tool bag, but I do have several degrees, and do understand the meaning of apolitical.

The proper way of handling this could have been done very simply without wearing your Democratic shirts. I do not drink coffee, so it personally does not affect me, but you parading around in those Democratic shirts does, because only one side was represented, and it does not represent all of the senior center members. I would feel the same way if a Republican or Independent committee were doing the same. Politics has no place in the senior center, period.

If one entity is represented, then it is slanted to only one party, and is not apolitical. What you should have done is simple. The center publishes a monthly newsletter. A statement in this newsletter should be printed that your committee is donating money for a free second cup of coffee. This should have been the only notice, and acceptable for an apolitical luncheon meeting at the center.

Ronald Feldstein

Carson City

Regarding the Sept. 16 letter from Mark Gregory, "Who is getting your vote in 2012?"

How will I vote in 2012? I'll probably vote for our President Barack Obama.

I am an 81-year-old first-generation French Basque American, a proud U.S. Naval Air veteran (1947-50), not a racist, not an idiot, nor a bigot.

Gentty P. Etcheverry

Carson City

A gun is not inherently evil. I can place a pistol or a shotgun on my desk and it will not jump up, fly to the window and shoot someone. It takes a person to use it for good or evil.

There is a history of selling gun-control laws to increase safety, but they are really people-control laws. Jim Crow laws sounded reasonable: They would prevent the slaves from having too much power. Frontier laws forbade selling rifles and ammunition to the Indians. The Sullivan laws of the East were designed to disarm the Papist immigrants, i.e., Irish, Italian and Hispanic.

The colonies also had laws requiring voters to have arms in their houses and to attend organized drills. A family was expected to defend itself until a posse could be organized to rescue the family. This idea of self-reliance coupled with joining together for defense was the reason for the Second Amendment.

The first part of the Second Amendment stresses that the community must be prepared to assemble for the common defense. The second part is two-fold. The individual has the responsibility, and therefore the right, to protect his family. Secondly, the individual has the duty to be prepared to help his neighbor.

It is already against the law for minors, felons, the insane, etc., to have firearms. Passing more gun (people) control laws will not stop gang members, lunatics, etc., from acting badly.

Frank Z. Paluch

Carson City


Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment