Letters to the editor for Wednesday, January 23, 2013

It has become abundantly clear that politicians such as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and President Obama have chosen to ignore several issues regarding the Newtown shootings and are going with just a knee-jerk, feel-good legislation instead of giving serious thought about the events leading to this tragedy.

A comprehensive review of several aspects must be addressed to achieve an understanding of what happened. This goes far beyond of merely being a Second amendment topic.

There are three fundamental elements that need to reviewed:

1. Gun control only applies to law-abiding citizens.

2. Mental health, which has been largely ignored for decades.

3. School safety practices need to be reviewed and enhanced.

Let's be frank. If someone is hell-bent on assaulting a school, he or she may very well succeed.

The idea here is to mitigate this threat regardless of methods employed.

And finally, are there any statesmen left in this country, or are there just politicians?

Robert Bostinto


It is amazing how misinformed most people are on gun control.

First, most people, including politicians, don't know what an assault rifle is. An assault rifle is a firearm with a selective fire switch on it. That means going from semiautomatic to full automatic or three-round burst.

Most of the current definitions are just cosmetic. The new state law that just went into effect has destroyed my pistol team because it has outlawed most of the pistols on the team, not to mention the summer rifle league.

Imagine a golfer who had everything above a 9-iron outlawed. I have seen a 500 percent increase in students in my safety classes and a run on pistol licenses. This tells me one thing: People are not afraid of a madman with an AK-47. They are afraid of the government.

If they take away your guns first, what is the next thing they will take away? If you think I am kidding, I wish I were.

Mark Copeletti

New Windsor

All the discussion about the Second Amendment to our Constitution have encouraged me to look at it and here it is.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Please bear in mind that it was written at a time when the colonists (British subjects for the most part) had defeated a great power and were still recovering from the harshness of the poaching laws that would rule that any intruder on private (mostly royalty held lands) lands for the purpose of shooting to obtain food would be hanged summarily.

Also individual states were not always in agreement on a national agenda.

Josephine Bayne


Under the Patriot Act, our protections under the Constitution have been hijacked for the past 10 years by Bush and then Obama because of 9/11 in order to feel safe here in America. We applauded it, and rightfully so.

Gov. Cuomo is being accused of undermining the Second Amendment by banning military assault weapons sold here in New York, be it over-the-counter at gun shows and yard sales. As part of the law, law-abiding handgun owners can keep their permit information private. So he is two-for-two if you're the NRA and keeping score.

It seems the NRA has its panties in a bunch because Cuomo did not hold public hearings on the assault-weapons ban. News flash: He does not have to, just as the police do not need a warrant to search you or your property if they believe you're involved with terrorism. We gave up those rights after 9/11.

End the war and restore our rights is what the NRA should be preaching, but the organization is in the gun manufacturing lobbying business and business is good.

Robert J. Schaefer


People who keep referring to the Second Amendment of the Constitution — "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" — are not putting it in perspective for our current day.

It's like comparing apples to oranges. If you look at the intent of the amendment, people have the right to bear arms under the auspices of a state militia — not on their own. And when this amendment was enacted in 1791, the "arms" they were referring to were single-shot pistols and rifles.

I have to think that that if they had assault rifles, Uzis and multiple-shot magazines in that day, the wording in the amendment would have been more specific (or possibly nonexistent).

Let's be realistic. No civilian needs, or should have, any type of assault weapon whatsoever, and it should be a crime to possess one under any circumstance. It will obviously take time — and there will undoubtedly be more disasters in the future — but as we gradually rid ourselves of these terrible instruments of death, we will reap the benefits of a safer society overall.

Peter Anderson

Port Jervis

I would like to add some commentary to Leonard Pitts' column about the online maps of gun ownership. As we all know, there's a lot of nuts out there who would go to any dubious lengths to obtain a firearm.

Let's make it a little easier for them — we'll supply them with thousands of names and addresses where there are lots of guns. All they have to do is be patient, bide their time, case the place and wait for the right time to get in and do their dirty work. Don't think it can happen? Don't bet on it. If some moron gets weapons in this fashion, anything can happen — another Newtown, God forbid.

As a victim of a home burglary, I say never leave your handgun unattended; always know it's in a safe available place at all times. When you go out, don't leave it home unless you have a safe — take it with you. All other weapons and ammunition should be stored in a gun safe. If you don't have one, now would be an excellent time to obtain one.

I can't help but think that a gun safe would have made a difference in any of the recent tragedies.

Earl R. Curry


Reader Reaction