Hopes to be politically and evironmentally informative
To the editor:
We have the deepest sympathy for the Sandy Hook victim’s parents, relatives and loved ones. This must be said repeatedly because to disagree with proposed anti-gun regulations is to be labeled heartless, mercenary, accessory to murder and any other horrendous name the socialist Democrats and progressives can use to further their mission to neuter the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Low information people see anti-gun regulations as the solution to reducing all major crimes. Clear thinking curious citizens are aware that every attempt for crime reduction by severe regulation or confiscation of firearms has repeatedly failed – failed miserably.
The low information people are in the right church but the wrong pew – The Church of Reform, yes. The firearms pew, no. Let’s go to the social repair pew.
The 1950s gave us Sen. McCarthy who cleaned the Communists out of Hollywood. He was censured by his colleagues in 1954 for “communist witch hunting.” Let’s have another McCarthy clean out the Hollywood Swamp once again. Let’s clone him and send him to the Department of Health, Department of Education and the many other government cesspools that need emptying.
We know the proposed gun laws are a result of emotion, not rational or clear thinking. Barack Obama has made it his mission to prey on the Sandy Hook victims’ parents by parading them around like a bunch of trained animals to forward his attempts to weaken a constitutional amendment with the ultimate result being total firearm confiscation and government control of its citizens.
My letter is intended to be both political and environmentally informative. You read the political, now for the environmental. Webster’s definition of a vulture: Someone who waits for a chance to exploit somebody else when that person is vulnerable.
The vulture is a bird, similar to the Chicago bird who counseled a Washington vulture “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Do we save this bird or let him humanely expire?
Charles E. Deibert