Re: the letter “Guns a public health issue,” (May 20) saying our nation's policy on firearms should be decided by “experts”: Who are the experts?
I watch Fox News. It features many young, attractive blonde females who look good in a short skirts and high heels and received their law degrees in the past week. These ladies are considered experts.
The letter writer states our elected representatives would be replaced by “medical experts” at the American Medical Association — there's an unbiased organization — who would conclude the Second Amendment is hazardous to public safety.
These “experts” would also ban tobacco, alcohol, red meat, soft drinks, automobiles, trampolines, bicycles, football and abortion clinics. The logic being is that all of these are also anathema to the public well-being.
Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
We have a government of, by and for the people with supposedly fair elections that determine public policy. If you don't like the laws, change them via the electoral process, maybe even vote to ban influence peddling.
Then we'll pray we don't end up with another Volstead Act.
David A. Scandrol
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.
- Bible under attack
- Voting insanity
- Gruber, then & now III
- Gruber, then & now II
- Gruber, then & now I
- Postal questions
- Family first
- Quarantine quandary
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- On right track
- Not ‘too stupid’