Destroying Constitution will make us safer
To the editor:
I agree with Jerry Sturdivant (“Repeal 2nd Amendment – and 4th, too,” Tuesday letter to the editor).
I am a retired Air Force major and, during my career, I traveled to many different countries and observed what happens in countries where citizens are not allowed to have weapons, including Spain when Francisco Franco was a dictator there.
I don’t mind being searched when I go shopping or to the doctor to see if I have a gun or something illegal on me. Nobody but the police should have guns, and, of course, criminals who we wouldn’t be able to disarm, but I can live with that. Then we could be like Chicago, where more than 430 people have died in 2012 gun violence cases so far, and 11 people were shot on Dec. 4 alone. Law-abiding Chicagoans have not been not allowed to carry concealed weapons. Remember, only police and criminals will have guns.
Once we get rid of these old-fashioned beliefs (the Second and Fourth Amendments), why not get rid of the First Amendment? Then we wouldn’t have to put up with all those religious nuts who keep trying to cram God down our throats. Heck, now that I think of it, why don’t we get rid of the Bill of Rights, and after that we could trash the Constitution and give up all of our freedoms.
Now that we have settled that, I feel much safer.
Lannie M. Yates
Las Vegas
Give bad guys pause
To the editor:
Concerning the school shooting in Connecticut, I noticed the first reaction of Las Vegas police was to send an armed officer to each school in the city. One wonders how many lives would have been saved if someone at Sandy Hook Elementary School hadb een armed.
I know that the first liberal reaction was to demand that President Obama “do something about guns,” meaning to somehow go after the Second Amendment. My reaction was just the opposite: Allow all responsible adults to carry weapons anytime and any place. These mass-shooting massacres have taken place in facilities and areas where guns are not allowed – except for the bad guys who don’t follow laws anyway.
Most of these thugs would have second thoughts about attempting to pull off these murderous acts if they thought someone might be armed.
HARRY LONG
HENDERSON
Hard-headed
To the editor:
Recently, columnists Sherman Frederick and Vin Suprynowicz have opined against Nevada’s helmet law on the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.
I would support an initiative to allow the two of them an exception to the law so they could ride motorcycles without a helmet.
Charles Parrish
Las Vegas
Green energy
To the editor:
Regarding Sunday’s commentary “Tax credit critical to Nevada’s future,” by former Govs. Robert F. List and Richard H. Bryan:
With all due resect, why did the former governors have to partner to write an article supporting green energy? I thought the facts were clear and indisputable: Green energy is extremely expensive to produce. Just ask the customers of NV Energy.
Federal government intervention has provided billions of dollars that have disappeared through bankruptcies. The industry provides temporary construction jobs until completion of the projects, and then only a handful of permanent employees.
I sense that the writers’ concern for the welfare of Nevadans may be a secondary issue. Is it possible the enormous amount of dollars invested in Nevada would yield a windfall to the legal firms writing the contracts?
It may be that green energy has a future decades down the road. Right now green energy is not ready for prime time no matter what our former leaders suggest. No more public subsidies or tax credits for green energy entrepreneurs. Let them use their own money, and make them stop socializing the risks and privatizing the profits.
EDWARD R. DUFFY
LAS VEGAS
Dumpster diving
To the editor:
Another crushing blow to all of the senior citizens who depend on Social Security to eat. We all got a letter saying we will get a raise in Social Security benefits in January 2013. I got a big $8 in my monthly check. Then the government raised Medicare costs from $75 to $109.90.
I guess all of us elderly people should celebrate, as now with the big raise, we can go to McDonald’s and order from their dollar menu. In the letter, the government tells us the raise they are giving us is because of the rise in the cost of living. Eight dollars a month? How many politicians got an $8 raise?
I guess we have to go back to Dumpster diving.
GERRY BAXTER
HENDERSON
School choice
To the editor:
Your Dec. 10 editorial, “Competition is here,” was right on target.
Many education-related challenges, e.g. underperforming and overcrowded schools, spiraling college costs and rising student debt, challenges compounded by the fiscal environment, have but one foundational cause: the fatally flawed hidden assumption that schools, colleges and universities are the only avenues to learning and to knowledge dissemination. Alternatives such as charter schools, and many more, are now emerging, with additional alternatives to follow in the coming years.
When we move beyond this hidden assumption, we will reap learning that is more effective and less costly.
Dave Stein
Las Vegas
