Bad guys will always get guns
In response to recent letters about sensible gun control: Background checks are a must and registration is good, but I’d like to think these writers would agree the evil element can bypass background checks and certainly won’t register illegal firearms. So where does that leave us? If guns are taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, then all they can do is rely on a police officer who probably won’t arrive in time. Bad guys love unarmed victims.
Guns have been in our homes since the birth of our nation, so what happened?
• Values and responsibility are not being taught at home.
• TV and movie gunfights. The same people who make money on action movies want to take your guns from you.
• Courts in many cases are too lenient on sentencing.
• The warning signs of a potential mass shooter with suicidal intentions are being ignored.
Semi-automatic guns have been in our homes since World War II, so nothing new there. Most places you can’t hunt with them, but our Second Amendment wasn’t to guarantee hunters could have their rifles; it was to ensure citizens could protect themselves from a runaway government. World history provides many examples of unarmed citizens being massacred at the pleasure of their communist state.
If statistics of registered gun owners guilty of mass shootings and other crimes were shown, the number would be extremely low. The NRA doesn’t produce criminals; it teaches safety and marksmanship to law-abiding citizens, many who have gone on to serve and defend our country.
Ron Maxson, Hempfield
The writer is a retired Marine.
What about the two-ton weapons — cars?
In response to Diana Steck’s letter “Enough is enough — we need action on guns” (June 8, TribLIVE): Wow, amazing, good go, Congress, for passing new gun control laws and saving the children of the USA. Steck got the “action” she clamored for.
I sure won’t miss all of the 24/7 news ad nauseum about dead children (tongue-in-cheek). Except that now that the gun violence has been quelled, auto crashes can resume its traditional lead in dead children’s body counts. This will give Steck something to work on in the near and far future. The children’s death toll on our highways has always been No. 1 and isn’t always just an accident, either. Many vehicle deaths are actually homicides, too. For some reason, the public doesn’t consider criminal homicide by vehicle with the same conviction as with a gun. Give an unstable person a vehicle, add some attitude, drugs and alcohol, and you now have a two-ton “weapon.”
I only want to make one more comment: Criminals and mass murderers don’t adhere to laws. Only responsible, law-abiding citizens do, and they aren’t the problem.
Robert W. Smith, Plum
Guns come with responsibility
I watch the news every day and become more disheartened all the time. We have children being killed and killing each other. Just this morning was a story of a 12-year-old boy committing armed robbery.
I am a gun owner and believe that is my right, but it is also my responsibility. I cannot receive a driver’s license without proving my knowledge and proficiency; purchasing a firearm should be no different.
I fully support responsible gun ownership, with responsible being the operative word. Background checks need to be thorough, and an operators course should be mandatory. I was taught how to operate, clean and properly store my weapons in the military.
In addition, penalties for illegal possession and sale of firearms need to be severe. I don’t believe this infringes on my rights and may actually do something to prevent at least one wrongful shooting. Adults and children alike need to understand that they are responsible for their actions. Gun violence is a symptom of a larger problem and needs to be addressed as such.
Tim Anderson, Blairsville
Can we save both mother and baby?
As the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision day approaches and the plethora of Roe defenses abound in the press, social media and religious circles, let us explore realities about that much referenced exception to preserving innocent life in Judaism — to save the life of the mother.
We’ve been told for years that torturing an unborn child to death is necessary in these rare situations. Not true, according to the experts at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They say it is medically and morally preferable to humanely remove the baby from the uterus by cesarean section. The baby can be saved if viable. In truly life-threatening situations, the mother’s life is saved quickly by cesarean section delivery, rather than risking her life awaiting the two to three days of preparation required for an abortion.
Late-term brutal dismemberment of an unborn child is dangerous for the mother because of the possibility of the abortionist rupturing the uterus. Infertility often results. Post-abortion, many mothers experience long-term night terrors and remorse.
No informed rabbi would authorize a torturous death of an innocent, pain-capable infant when the baby can be saved or put a woman in danger when a safe alternative is available.
Let us encourage our rabbis to recommend saving both mother and child, if possible, in the exceptional cases rather than assume the moral liability that comes by authorizing a barbaric torture and death of an innocent child and the predictable harm to the mother.
Cecily Routman, Sewickley
The writer is president of the Jewish Pro-Life Foundation.
Media biased against Mastriano
I concur with Joe Schmidt’s excellent letter accusing the Tribune-Review and Associated Press of unprofessional attacks on Sen. Doug (“Hit piece on Mastriano yellow journalism,” June 15, TribLIVE).
I cannot understand why anyone in the media, especially a Western Pennsylvania newspaper, would not only be shocked, but legitimately impressed by Mastriano’s victory for the Republican nomination for governor against some very respectable opponents with excellent backing and credentials. Nonetheless, Mastriano came out on top with an impressive 48% of the vote without support from big monied contributors and very little positive support from most media outlets.
He was mainly characterized by the media as a “far-right candidate.” Is this because he supports the Second Amendment, he’s a pro-life candidate and Christian, or because he believes strongly in a legitimate photo ID to vote? I think many Americans support these principles. Is it because he is challenging the validity of the Pennsylvania vote for president in 2020?
Just because he organized buses and attended President Trump’s “Stop the Steal Rally” on Jan. 6, AP articles in May insinuated he participated in the riot, when he and his wife left immediately upon learning of the disturbance at the Capitol.
Apparently, many Pennsylvania voters must have similar concerns. Mastriano won because he had significant grassroots support though his donors and his unprecedented number of door-to-door campaigners and 29,000 signatures from all 67 counties.
I am hopeful Western Pennsylvania voters will be monitoring and questioning the fairness of the coverage through the upcoming elections.
Michael Contes, New Kensington
Mastriano’s dangerous plans
In his letter “Hit piece on Mastriano yellow journalism” (June 15, TribLIVE), Joe Schmidt said Doug Mastriano, the state’s Republican candidate for governor, is being unfairly attacked by the media because he’s a Christian nationalist. Christian nationalists interviewed in an article that appeared in the Penn Capital Star on May 11 told the newspaper, “God intended America to be a Christian country.” If that’s Mastriano’s belief and he becomes Pennsylvania’s next governor, what happens if he signs an executive order denying non-Christian state residents the right to practice their religions?
Mastriano also is promising as governor, he will order millions of voters’ information removed from county voting rolls and require all voters to resubmit their applications to vote. Mastriano hasn’t shown any real evidence of voter fraud, nor presented a real plan to stop it in the future.
We have been granted freedom of religion and the right to vote by the U.S. and state constitutions. If Mastriano is being attacked by the media, it’s not because of his religious beliefs, but because his plans for Pennsylvania are too radical and too dangerous.
Frances Weiss, White Oak
Juneteenth explained
There seems to be confusion about the significance of the Juneteenth holiday. Allow me to explain. On July 4, we celebrate Americans not having to pay taxes to England. On June 19, we celebrate that Americans are no longer bought, sold and owned by the people who didn’t want to pay taxes.
Thomas C. Spallone, Hempfield