Guns, God & drugs
I recently went to renew my gun permit and was surprised to see the number of younger women, some with small children, applying for licenses to carry firearms. There also were quite a few elderly men utilizing their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
My guess is these law-abiding citizens wanted a gun for self-defense, not some criminal activity such as drug-dealing. The new gun permits are photo IDs, not slips of paper that are easily misplaced. One gentleman remarked, “If we can have a photo ID for a gun permit, why not one for voter registration?”
Good question! No one in our group refused to get a permit because of the photo requirement.
When my family moved to Arnold in 1939, gun permits were not required. Most families had at least one hunter and guns were readily available.
People could walk the street after sundown without fear of being shot or robbed. Most people didn't bother to lock their doors. Try that today and you have a good chance of being a crime victim.
What has changed? In the past, parents fulfilled the responsibility of caring for their children, teachers were still in charge of the classroom and uniformed policemen often walked a beat. Prayer was allowed in our public schools — our day began by reciting the Lord's Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance. No one complained if a teacher wore a necklace with a cross, Star of David or any other symbol.
Today, drugs are a criminal enterprise destroying our country. Yet some feel our only recourse is to legalize drugs.
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.
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- On right track
- Not ‘too stupid’
- Quarantine quandary
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Not Obama’s doing
- Armed & prudent
- Media & city violence
- Failure, not success
- Hypocrisy & B’nai B’rith