New legislation does not restrict gun rights | Letter to the Editor

I find myself unable to resist the necessity to rebut the talking points of the anti-Obama right parroted by J. Buss.

I find myself unable to resist the necessity to rebut the talking points of the anti-Obama right parroted by J. Buss (“With current president, our country is less safe,” Jan. 6).

Some years ago, George Orwell, the noted critic of ideological nonsense commented that, “political language is designed to make lies sound truthful…and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Contrary to NRA-sponsored propaganda, not only has Mr. Obama not made any attempt to, in the words of Mr. Buss, “restrict gun rights of law abiding United States citizens,” he did sign into law a major extension of gun rights in 2009, just five months after taking office. That law, mostly opposed by Republicans and passed by a majority of Democrats, allowed citizens to carry weapons in national parks, which restriction was ironically signed into law by the iconic right-wing hero Ronald Reagan. I have yet to hear of any restriction on gun rights sponsored by Mr. Obama.

Secondly, the president did not “refute” ISIS as claimed by Buss. He did, however, rebuke ISIS, an entirely different thing. In his statement before the Paris climate talks, the president rebuked, i.e. “expressed sharp disapproval” of their actions and declared that the civilized nations of the world were meeting in Paris in defiance of the terrorist attacks to deal with an important global challenge. Perhaps some would prefer that he stay at home, cowering in fear of “radical Islamist terrorism.” However, he and other world leaders chose to show resolve, carrying out their leadership roles by thumbing their noses at the Islamic State attempts to cow the world with nihilistic violence. As another courageous world leader, Germany’s Angela Merkel has said, “Fear has never been a good adviser, neither in our personal lives nor in our society.”

I am saddened by those who denigrate the ability of our security personnel to carry out the incredibly difficult job of protecting our nation. Those 10,000 Syrian refugees are going to be trickled in over a period of two years after exhaustive efforts to vet their bonafides. Will the process ever be perfect? Probably not, but then what process is? While Canada takes in 25,000 Syrian refugees, will we whimper in fear of 10,000 mostly women and children fleeing for their lives? As one who spent my working life teaching children the virtue and wonder of America, I certainly hope not.

Robert DuChaine

Buckley

 

More in Letters to the Editor

Freedom and equality can only be achieved under God

Believing man can achieve this alone is folly.

Taking firearms and killing kids — that’s today’s political left

New York’s new abortion laws are will only worsen the infanticide.

Thank you, EHS students, for honoring local vets

It wasn’t even for a holiday, but they sure made it a special occasion.

Be diligent in listening, then be willing to bend a little

Without personal experiences, numbers are meaningless.

Democrats are experts on propaganda, too

Rich Elfers’ recent column only talked about the Trump administration’s propaganda. Here’s some from the other side.

Mueller moving too slow

We can’t wait for another shutdown.

Anecdotal evidence is not reality

It’s an easy trap to fall into.

Letter writer made an error in his Ode

He should have used a Democrat.

Stats show white people, not immigrants, cause more crime

Open borders is not the same as open homes.

If you’re going to bash our president, do it constructively

“Ode to Donald” shouldn’t have been published.

Sanctuary laws led to an officer’s death

Corporal Ronil Singh would be alive today if it weren’t for California’s “sanctuary city” laws.

What could go wrong with open borders?

Might as well open your home, too.