Let's discuss gun laws
The tragedy in Newtown, Conn., has touched the hearts of the world. The discussion begins again on what is wrong with our culture and why this happens. There are many opinions, but no rational explanations.
But one thing we need to do is discuss our gun laws. Shouldn't we discuss why the average Joe needs to own assault weapons? Why is the National Rifle Association so silent on this issue? Doesn't the NRA agree that the only weapons one needs in his or her home are hunting rifles and shotguns and a simple handgun?
The NRA has exploited the fear of gun control since President Obama was elected in 2008. The NRA gets a great deal of money from gun manufacturers, which explains its stance. It hides behind the Second Amendment and creates a fear frenzy among its members. I hold the NRA somewhat responsible for the culture of gun violence in America because it will not permit reasonable discussion of effective gun control.
I understand why members of Congress won't discuss gun laws: If they talk about gun control, they will lose their election. We, the voters, are responsible for permitting this to happen, because we reward the NRA by defeating all gun-control supporters.
I hold the Fox media empire responsible for our fearful culture. It promotes extreme right-wing propaganda, feeds on paranoia and plants the seed of fear among its viewers.
America, we're better than this. We, as a nation, need to say enough is enough. It's time for intelligent and calm discussion on these issues haunting our wonderful country.
If not now, when?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Being a volunteer firefighter
- PETA & its tactics I
- PETA & its tactics II
- UMW fighting EPA regulations
- Uncaring toward soldiers
- Bad cartoon
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- It’s not personal
- New Kensington block party thanks