Letters to the editor: New gun laws are necessary

Gun owners are alarmed that President Barack Obama will take away their guns! He will disarm the public! Does the government need watching? Disarming? Are fearful gun owners forgetting that "the government" is elected by all the citizens? Do they forget that they can vote to elect people who believe as they do?

Being fearful of the new regulations is like being fearful of regulations for a driver's license. Since licenses were first required, there have been numerous regulations added. Some are distasteful, some are irksome, but all are required for every driver. "The government" takes it away only when you are not willing or able to follow these regulations. Because there are more and more regulations, does it mean "the government" is ready to take away your car? Have you ever written to you congressman or senator to protest these regulations? But you howl when gun controls are brought up.

It's the same with gun control. Obama isn't taking away anyone's right to own a gun -- he is trying to regulate these powerful killing machines, just as the government has put restrictions on drivers' licenses. In a New York Times/CBS News poll, 54 percent of people polled said gun control laws should be made more strict. Ninety-two percent would favor a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers. The proposed ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines is not restricting our Second Amendment rights; it is helping our country reduce our obsession with these dangerous firearms.

Tony and Marti Pastore|Erie



Hopes dashed

A note to the Erie Times-News: When the "analysts" decide to announce to the people that gas prices are expected to go down, please refrain from printing it and getting our hopes up. It has become quite obvious that these people are just a bunch of liars!

Dan Orengia|Harborcreek



Many people carry guns legally

In the letter titled "Protection needed from amendment," the writer questions "why someone would feel the need to bring a gun into this store at which I've shopped safely for almost 20 years" (Erie Times-News, Feb. 1).

To address the safe shopping for 20 years, look at the theater in Colorado and the mall in Oregon. People had been safe there for years. Yet bad things happened. This can happen anytime, anywhere.

The writer goes on to state that "in Pennsylvania, a licensed gun owner may legally carry a handgun openly in any public area or building." Any individual who's legally allowed to own a firearm has these rights. No license is required to open carry. One can pay for a concealed-carry permit and undergo a background check if one wishes to carry a weapon concealed.

There were probably several others in that store carrying a concealed weapon and were most likely all law-abiding. You ask how safe we would all feel in a store on a Sunday afternoon with a bunch of pistol-packing shoppers. Every day, millions of legal gun owners carry their weapons and nothing happens, because they are law-abiding.

Finally, the letter diverged to a rant about assault weapons with large-capacity magazines. According to FBI data, in 2010, more murders were committed by knifes/blades (1,704) than by rifles (358) and there were twice as many murders by hands, feet and fists. Perhaps you should be more afraid of grocery store shoppers who are openly displaying their hands and feet.

Brian Cabaday|Erie



Post Office woes not presented fully

I was intrigued by the front-page article that detailed the economic burdens faced by the U.S. Postal Service, which have already led to cuts in personnel and post offices, and now are ending the delivery of mail on Saturdays (Erie Times-News, Feb. 7).

The reporter faithfully documented the budgetary shortfalls faced by the USPS, losses that were used to explain why such cuts were needed. Taken at face value, the article would seem to be a valid report on the status of one of our oldest institutions, led initially by Ben Franklin in 1775.

Such a prized American institution should, I imagine, be given a fair portrayal in today's media, but it appears that this is not the case. Not once in the entire article was the basis of the USPS' financial woes commented upon, namely a bill passed in 2006 that required the Postal Service to pre-fund all current and future retirement benefits for the next 75 years. And what time frame did the Postal Service have to meet this obligation? Ten years, which has come to roughly $5.5 billion per year that the USPS has had to pay. There is no precedent anywhere in our country's history for such an obligation, private sector or public.

The USPS has delivered mail to U.S. citizens faithfully for 238 years, and it is my hope that it will continue to do so. But to advertise its financial problems without an explanation of why these problems exist is dishonest journalism.

It is my hope that our post offices and mail carriers will be able to prevail and continue to be an institution that can be depended on for the next two centuries. If the United States Postal Service fails because of an unprecedented fiscal burden, then we will all feel the loss of a treasured system. But if worthwhile public institutions fail because of laziness and poor reporting on the part of our newspapers, then we risk losing much, much more.

Alex Nagle|Fairview



Toomey, Casey cooperation lauded

The editorial "Toomey, Casey have lesson for others" accurately praises the senators for working together for the good of the state (Erie Times-News, Feb. 5).

Senators must break the logjam that has left the federal courts with as many as 110 vacancies the last three years, and Sen. Bob Casey and Sen. Pat Toomey are doing their part. They cooperated to fill two long-standing Middle District vacancies and are working hard to fill six vacancies in the Eastern District for which President Barack Obama has nominated three fine choices whom the senators recommended. The courts need all of their judges to deliver justice.

Carl Tobias|Richmond, Va.



Privatizing lottery, liquor stores hit

Gov. Tom Corbett has to go! First, he moved to privatize the Pennsylvania Lottery, and now the liquor stores and beer distributors. Where am I supposed to get my keg of beer? Tops or Walmart? Come on, get real!

Pam Leszek|Erie

Editor's note: Attorney General Kathleen Kane determined last week that the state's lottery agreement with Camelot Global Services LLC is unconstitutional.