Letters to the editor, Aug. 19
August 19, 2012
Sensible gun control debate continues
A heartfelt “thank you” to Ralph Swagler for his thoughtful and touching response to my letter. I only wish that all gun owners had the keen awareness for the sanctity of life and respect for the awesome power of firearms that Mr. Swagler clearly has. And those who harassed and tried to shame him for his actions that terrible day should themselves be deeply ashamed.
And now to my “but …”: I am not arguing that guns should be taken away or that the right to own them should be infringed. My point is that the right is not unlimited. The Constitution clearly states that the people have the right to bear arms and that they should be well-regulated. In other words, the people’s right to bear arms does and should exist within a framework of sensible (my word) laws and regulation.
And finally, the car-to-gun analogy Mr. Swagler draws doesn’t quite work. A car is a mode of transportation – not a weapon. Yes, it can be dangerous and can even kill. But that is not its purpose. A gun is a weapon (yes, operated by a person who is responsible for its use), but its purpose is to kill.
In closing, though we may never completely agree, I’m grateful Mr. Swagler is still with us to have the debate. If we ever meet, I would be honored to shake his hand – one American to another.
Recommended Stories For You
Community misses Locals BBQ
I was reading the letter from Ralph Swagler regarding the incident at the IHOP restaurant and was saddened that so many people could judge him and be so cruel. That was a horrible day in Carson City, one that we will never forget, but to judge Mr. Swagler was uncalled for.
I hope whoever called and sent those awful letters to Mr. Swagler will truly ask for forgiveness. So sad that this had to happen and that Locals BBQ closed its doors.
Locals BBQ, you will be truly missed in this community.
Let’s go with the successful guy
The upcoming presidential election is going to present voters with two decidedly different paths to choose from.
President Obama originally ran on a platform of “hope and change.” He said during the campaign of 2008 that the American people would be able to watch the health care debate on C-SPAN and that there would be a period of 72 hours for a review of the bill before it was passed by Congress. Neither of these things happened.
In his first State of the Union address, he said that he would “focus like a laser beam” on job creation. Apparently he has had a problem finding the “on” switch. He also said that he would change the way politics were conducted in Washington, and I guess he has by bringing in Chicago style, slash and burn politics.
He is long on political experience and attitude, but very short on any real experience in job creation, and it shows with unemployment still above 8 percent.
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, brings private sector as well as political experience. He has been a successful governor in Massachusetts and a successful business executive at Bain Capital for 25 years, having a success rate of 80 percent. He also took over the 2002 Olympics and made them successful.
So that brings us to two choices: Four more years of the same policies or take a chance on a new direction. We took a chance electing President Obama, and that hasn’t panned out too well.
Still too expensive and not needed
It is interesting to observe the morphing of the City Center Project, Knowledge+ Discovery Center and the Nugget Revitalization over the past months and years (it seems like years.) The changes to the size, configuration and funding sources seem to come from nowhere and somehow eventually gather more public support. The project is still too big, too expensive and unneeded.
It is disheartening to learn that the Board of Supervisors has passed the ordinance prohibiting public funding, which appears like an end-run around the one ballot question on which so many have labored. It’s hard to imagine the reason for this. Hopefully, it’s not so that it can be voted out later.
So it looks like there will be only one question concerning this project on the November ballot. The public will at last have a chance to speak in a meaningful form.
Another possibility to consider in November are the two changes on the Board of Supervisors. If the vote were taken today, the project would probably pass, similar to the vote last fall. If the “right” people are elected, the vote could conceivably go against the project. Just food for thought. As they say: Vote early and vote often (unless they check your photo ID.)
In order to revitalize downtown, traffic needs to be reduced with the completion of the bypass. This should be job one. The present city infrastructure can’t always handle the existing traffic. We can see from recent events meant to attract business and industry to the area that tax breaks are a major player.