Where are Obama’s tears for soldiers?
Re “A passionate president crusades against gun violence” (Editorials, Jan. 6): Where were the tears for the Fort Hood soldiers? Where were the tears for the men killed in Benghazi? Where were the tears for the ones killed in San Bernardino?
There weren’t any from him. And do we know why? Could it be because of the Muslims? According to this administration, we can’t say anything bad about Muslims. What a president we have.
Bill Moore, El Dorado Hills
Never miss a local story.
Sandy Hook is no excuse for gun laws
It is shameful that Obama uses the disgusting and unfortunate incident in Newtown, Conn., as an example to prop up his move to override Congress and overstep his authority.
It is idiocy to think that the Sandy Hook massacre could have been prevented if we had better and more gun laws. Sandy Hook was about a very troubled and disturbed man and a community that ignored a neighbor showing all the signs of being in distress. You reap what you sow.
More gun laws will not help. Common sense is what failed in Sandy Hook, not gun laws. And a president shedding tears on TV won’t help either.
Richard K. Thompson, Roseville
Obama’s gun plan won’t help much
The editorial board clearly supports President Obama’s executive actions on gun violence. But the editorial failed to identify a single action the president proposes that would’ve prevented the massacres at San Bernardino, Umpqua Community College, Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting.
Why is that? Because none of the proposed actions will have any impact on criminals’ acquiring guns. The only action the president is proposing that might help is to provide additional funding for those with mental health problems.
What the president should do is be more aggressive at enforcing existing gun laws in order to reduce street violence that accounts for nearly all murders. He could do this with more funding for selected federal prosecutors who actually want to prosecute such crimes. He could begin in cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
Ed Kaempf, Granite Bay
Dangerous path to a dictatorship
There is an old saying that the path to destruction is lined with good intentions, and the president “going around” Congress is one that every liberty-loving American should fear.
If the president wanted action, he should work every angle with Congress to get what he wants. But Obama is not skilled in the art of negotiation, compromise or leadership. Let’s hold the applause and consider his attack on Congress and our rights as a dangerous precedent leading to dictatorship.
David Trask, Elk Grove
It’s called the Constitution
You say you are waiting for the president’s foes to explain why the rights of gun owners are more important than others’ rights. It is called the Second Amendment. It confirms the unalienable right to bear arms, the same as the First Amendment confirms your right to a free press. Why do you oppose one but embrace the other?
Derald Langwell, Rancho Cordova
NRA is the key to gun control
Re “NRA foes take fight to state, local fronts” (Page 1B, Jan. 4): The NRA promotes the wise and rational use of firearms in support of the Second Amendment. Members purportedly buy their guns legally. They are trained in their safe use. It is an admirable organization that reportedly spent more than $32.5 million last year on campaigns and lobbying.
I want this admirable organization to spend some millions to keep guns in the hands of wise, rational, responsible, empathic people who live in the United States. The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms us to protect ourselves, but the threat has changed. “The enemy is us,” as Pogo used to say in an old comic strip. The NRA has the muscle to make things right.
Vada Russell, Sacramento
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.