Flawed logic on gunmaker suits
Re “Sanchez, Sanders and the firearm industry” (Forum, April 17): Dan Morain’s column complains about the law that exempts firearms manufacturers from lawsuits when people criminally misuse their products. If he really wants to go down that path, then car manufacturers should be liable for DUI-related deaths or injuries.
According to Morain’s logic, every one of those traffic victims is owed money from the automakers. It would probably be good at this point to start collecting money to aid all those unemployed autoworkers. If you want to ban guns, why not be straightforward about it and form a group to repeal the Second Amendment? Who knows? You might find doing things in an upright and aboveboard manner to be refreshing.
George Alger, Placerville
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Sacramento Bee
More demonization of gunmakers
Dan Morain’s column is the same old liberal whining. Stop demonizing the NRA. I have yet to see a neutral article about this organization.
As to the weird legal twists to hold the firearms industry accountable, it is faintly amusing. The NRA was founded to educate and train people about firearms. The right to self-defense is a constitutional right.
The main worry that appears in the liberal minds is that the majority of citizens may rise up against the tyranny that appears to be seeping across the land.
Andrew Mattson, Roseville
America needs a businessman
Re “The Republican effort to stop Trump in California” (Forum, April 17): The article by Rob Stutzman, a GOP establishment representative, is exactly the reason the voters are upset this year.
Does his history with former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger qualify him to know who should be elected this year? Our nation is close to $20 trillion in debt, so why shouldn’t we consider a businessman for a leader?
We have thrown money at every corner of this Earth for other countries, and we are facing an annual debt repayment of billions. This can no longer be ignored.
Donald E. Perry,
Consultant’s opinion is off base
I strongly disagree with Rob Stutzman about the need to defeat Donald Trump. He states that he along with two other pals will combine all their suit-wearing wits to try to derail Trump in my home state. Good luck.
He claims that Trump would lose in a landslide to Hillary Clinton, based on polls. Trump will beat Clinton. I changed parties so I can vote for a person who has worked for a living. And Trump is a lot more than a narcissistic, vulgar, reality TV star.
Trump will make America great again.
Fortunes made with public’s help
Re “Don’t blame rich, change tax laws” (Letters, April 17): The Dorrances’ money, and every other U.S. industrial fortune, relied on public roads, school system, police and fire departments, hospitals, sanitation, and big federally funded water and power projects, not to mention farm subsidies and welfare assistance for minimum-wage field and service workers. Why didn’t simple decency drive them, as it did Andrew Carnegie, to invest back in their community?
David Fenimore, Reno
Flexible traffic fines make sense
Re “You’re an adult, take responsibility” (Letters, April 17): Linda Wallace, in the guise of favoring the same treatment under the law for everybody, is actually supporting one system for people who can afford traffic fines and one for people who can’t.
The ones who can afford them can be more careless about traffic laws, because they have no fear that they might lose their vehicle, their license or their job when they get a ticket. She sounds pretty tough saying people should take responsibility for their actions, don’t commit the crime, don’t expect special treatment – harsh language for something that is considered an infraction.
Is it really special treatment to offer alternatives to tacking penalties onto an already unaffordable fine? Not really, as long as there are some consequences that are more or less equivalent to charging a more affluent person a fine. Nothing in the article she is responding to suggested letting people off the hook.
Church’s actions prove Pitts wrong
Re “Conservatives lie about history to exonerate conscience” (Viewpoints, April 17): Leonard Pitts says, “You must be a liar, a fool or an ignoramus of Brobdingnagian proportions to suggest social conservatives have ever supported African American interests.” My church is not a big church, but we sent 10 teams to help out after Hurricane Katrina, handing out food, hugs, cleaning houses, and other help in the Ninth Ward. We worked alongside Franklin Graham’s Samaritans Purse and with hundreds of other volunteers from all over the country.
I’m just another typical member at my church; but according to Pitts I’m a liar, etc. When I teach classes at a local prison, or pack soup mix, etc., in Pitts warped mind I have never supported African American interests. The real problem for Pitts is social conservatives actually try to adhere to the words of Jesus. Pitts doesn’t understand.
Dean R. Coupe, Roseville
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.