weather image
Check out your forecast

print this Print email this Email  
small textmedium textlarge text

Letters to the Editor - Feb. 20, 2013

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Please help

To the editor: The Pease Greeters of NH, who greet returning servicemen from overseas, donate so much of their time and effort to making their return comfortable. Unfortunately this takes money so any contribution you could make would be greatly appreciated.

The address for the Pease Greeters is: Pease Greeters, PO Box 22311, Portsmouth, NH 03802-2311. Any contribution made would be greatly appreciated by these devoted people.

Marie Rogers



To the editor: Mr. Jim Mastro wrote in a letter to Fosters on 2/11 that he thinks the opposition to Gun Control legislation is “Insane”. I beg to differ. Mr. Mastro equates Gun Control with “ ... protecting innocent children from serving as targets”. Well now, who can argue with that? No one in their right mind. However, it is not that simple and if Mr. Mastro thought about it a bit more he might realize that. “Gun Control” has noting to do with protecting children. It's about “control” all right and about power, but the “control” is aimed at the citizen. And what favor does it do the children of today by taking away their freedoms of tomorrow? The current Liberal mantra is to enact Gun Control to protect children but a moment of clear thought will show that that argument is the Left using the murder of children as an emotional hook on which to hang there agenda of “control” and power.

Gun control has never worked and not one single law in effect now or in the past or the future would or will prevent any shooting anywhere.

Mr. Mastro denigrates the NRA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation, making sarcastic fun of the honorable members of those groups. He thinks that we gun owners “bear some responsibility” for horrors like Sandy Hook and says if the NRA had not fought the renewal of the Assault weapons ban in 2004, Sandy Hook would not have happened. Mr. Mastro, the State of Connecticut already had an Assault weapons ban! Didn't work to well did it? And you contradict yourself by also pointing out, rightly, that the current suggested Bill will have no effect what-so-ever, on so called “Assault Weapons” already in private hands. All 3 million of 'em.

He pooh-poohs the idea of “Armed guards in every school ...” Does he realize that in the President's 23 “Executive Actions” on guns is funding for schools to implement just such a program? He shudders at ... “Ordinary citizens packing concealed heat ever where they go. Imagine the Wild West shootouts we could have?” Mr. Mastro I think you would be shocked to know that while the US ranks No. 1 in worldwide gun ownership with 88 firearm per 100 people we rank 27 in gun related homicides. 9,145 died in the U.S. by gunshot in the most recent study. By contrast 30% of the population carry concealed. In a nation of over 300 Million people, there don't appear to be to many “Wild West” shoot outs. I carry a gun. I haven't shot anybody yet, and I pray I don't have to. But every day in the Foster's we see stories of home invasions, assaults, robberies, rape and we just hope none of that ever happens to us.

Mr. Mastro goes on to say, “Weapons designed for war do not belong on city streets.” Historically, war was the cause of the invention of the gun in the first place. As a result of that, guns have been ubiquitous tools of society for the last 400 years. Mr. Mastro trots out the now familiar mantra “ ... you don't need an assault rifle and 30 round magazine holding high velocity bullets.” What do I “need,” sir? Do we set up a new government department, the Department of “Need”? Who decides what we “need.”

When my parents died I inherited a house with four garages. Do I “need” four garages? Does some government lackey come along and say you don't need those garages, tear 'em down! I inherited about 150 neckties from my father and my uncle. I don't “need” a 150 neckties but who has the right to tell me that? Who has the right to tell my wife she can't have more than two pair of shoes? Who has the right to tell you what kind of car you “need”? Those who are familiar with my past letters know that I work in the security field and carry a gun. I painted the scenario whereby I wind up dead because the government limited the number of rounds I could carry in my magazine whilst the bad guy had as many as he wanted ... or an many as he thought he might “need”.

Tom Seiler


A rebuttal

To the editor: A Feb. 11 letter from Jim Mastro titled, “Insane,” starts out like he has an open mind by stating the two sides of the discussion are “talking past each other,” but not long afterward indicates advocates are “screaming at the top of their lungs.” Well, I won't scream at the top of my lungs, but I will address the issue as I see it. For the record, I fully support the 2nd Amendment and I am not a member of the NRA.

First, this issue isn't new. As was pointed out, a previous attempt to enact legislation occurred back in 1994. Anyone who has respect and knowledge of the Constitution knows it is the “Supreme Law of the Land.” This means regardless of any legislation, short of amending the Constitution itself, would inherently make that legislation “unconstitutional,” simply because it's not an amendment. So 19 years have passed since 1994, 19 years in which an amendment could've been drafted and gone through the process of bringing the issue to the people, but that has never happened and won't because it's not “expeditious.”

Second is the direction which the opposition wishes to take. Let us assume we can put aside the fact that the proper process is to amend the Constitution and legislate a change. In doing so, the opposition wishes to paint every legal gun owner as guilty and untrustworthy without due process rather than going to the real heart of the problem: criminals and people with certain mental illnesses. I can't say I can address the issue of mental illnesses, so I'll forego it. But to the issue of criminals, let's entertain the idea of legislation. Why has nobody on the opposition proposed legislation that hinges on the 4th Amendment rather than the 2nd? What am I suggesting? That felons would have no protections under it especially since they have already displayed a propensity to (put it mildly) ignore the law. In this way the law abiding citizens who have done no wrong are not the subject of and treated like second rate criminals before having been given due process and proven otherwise. Since a felon would no longer have protections under the 4th Amendment, then they would be subject to searches of their property at any time.

Nobody has proposed it because that's not what they're after. Mr. Mastro makes an assumption that the government isn't after everyone's guns; I beg to differ. Despite whether one is religious, there is still wisdom in the Bible. One very small portion reads: “ ... and you will know them by their deeds.” Simply put, the methods themselves give them away. The fact that they wish to circumvent the prescribed process, let alone where they're focusing the issue, should make anyone worry about the Government's intentions. Let us not forget that we are again dealing with reality here and not the fictional radio program of “The Shadow” where only he knows what “ ... evil lurks in the heart of men”.

There is no guarantee from anyone of the government's intention other than the safeguard the 2nd Amendment affords us. Let's not forget that it was our Government itself that gave us that protection and warned us to protect it — no, it wasn't a gift from King George. If Mr. Mastro wishes to remove the brakes from his vehicle and drive down the interstate at 55+ mph, then I suppose it's his prerogative. But I would argue that removing that particular safeguard would likewise jeopardize the lives of the other drivers on the interstate.

James Cloutier


Pay up

To the editor: Since President Obama took office in 2009, one of the most enduring attacks we've heard from Republicans has been aimed at his alleged “reckless”, “out-of-control” spending. It's a baseless attack, since actual spending has gone down during Obama's first term. However, where was the Republican outrage when the steepest rise in spending over the last 30 years occurred during the Bush era? In fact, in 2006 they voted without fuss or tantrum to raise the debt ceiling to an unprecedented $9 trillion.

Contrary to what Republicans want us to believe, government spending has gone down and is under control in the Obama era. The US government took in more revenue than it spent and ran a budget surplus of $3 billion in January, according to the Treasury Department. And according to the recent CBO report, the federal deficit is shrinking at the fastest pace in American history.

In the Bush years, spending hit historical proportions and nothing was done to reduce or address the burgeoning debt and curb the spending, even as a GOP-controlled Congress, Senate and White House were in place to exercise fiscal responsibility. By contrast, this president and this Democratic-led Senate have approved nearly $2.5 trillion in debt reduction spending cuts and we've seen the annual deficit go down, not up. So why is the GOP now refusing to pay the bills the Bush era spending incurred? Where were they 6,7, 8 years ago?

Kimberly Meuse


It is simplistic

To the editor: Your editorial on Feb. 13 re: Maine's current governor's plan to improve schools throughout our state said in the second paragraph, “Critics have called the plan simplistic.” Please count me among those critics! Paul LePage's idea that schools should receive A, B, C, D or F grades does indeed seem simplistic. Education in today's fast- evolving world is much more complex than the kind of school evaluation system he envisions. I do not mean to imply that schools should not reflect on — and improve upon — what they provide. I, however, do believe that changes must be well-considered, be thoroughly researched, and must demonstrate incisive analysis before being implemented. Quick fix remedies will surely do more harm than good.

Governor LePage may very well be open to ideas-just as long as they agree with his own apparently. Given his embarrassing volatile public outbursts at legislators and others, and clear disdain for public educators and their union, I cannot see him introducing any meaningful overhaul of Maine's schools. About the only good idea I have heard from him in this regard is that a lot of schools could take a good look at how to serve kids better who are not going on to four-year colleges. There is an increasing demand for workers with high technology skills. A school may need to look into its curriculum and begin providing classes to better equip students with the knowledge and training necessary for success in the more technically oriented fields. I realize some schools are already doing much in this area, but many I am sure could do more.

Some of Governor LePage's other ideas just seem unworkable and would burden local school budgets. Your paper said, “Conceptually, the notion of forcing local school districts to pay the bill for remedial classes their graduates may need in college is alluring.” Alluring? Here's an idea: maybe colleges that admit students who need remedial classes should look at their own admissions criteria. Not to be insensitive, but perhaps those students who do not measure up should not be in a four-year college until they can perform at the requisite collegiate level. Years ago, (ten, I think) a University of Southern Maine professor told me that about half of the freshmen there would either drop out or flunk out at the end of the first year! Again, except for those who leave for financial reasons, I cannot help but wonder how many of those students are poorly served by being admitted to a university in the first place.

Governor LePage has not yet impressed me as someone overly burdened with either intellectual depth or perception when it comes to solving the myriad problems any state may well encounter. His A, B, C, D, F assessment “solution” to grade Maine schools is a case in point and deserves skepticism. I sincerely hope that cooler, more rational heads in Augusta will prevent Maine's chief executive from wreaking havoc in the name of what he sees as educational progress.

Robert Barter

Berwick, Maine