Disrespectful words
I for one am sick and tired of hearing John Brummett badmouth the president of the United States. His latest rant is so disrespectful that I can hardly type this message.
Brummett states that we need to impeach President Trump based on the minimum age requirement.
I have a suggestion for this newspaper. Let's have a vote: those in favor of impeaching President Trump, or those in favor of dropping Brummett.
NICK GOODRICH
Mountain Home
Not where problem is
When I graduated from high school in 1953, I had never heard of a school shooting. If there were none back then, why so many now? There were no AR-15s, but there were Army surplus M1 carbines with detachable magazines which could be dropped and replaced as quickly as an AR-15 magazine. Also, a sawed-off semiautomatic or pump shotgun with the plug removed would allow five shots of buckshot.
If close to the same degree of destruction could be created then as now, why was it not done? The guns and ammo were readily available.
Maybe it was because most parents took their children to church on Sundays. Or maybe we still allowed prayer in our schools. Or maybe because most children came from homes with two parents in the home. Or maybe it was because the death penalty for murder would be imposed and carried out in a speedy manner. Or maybe a kid like Nikolas Cruz would have been sent to a reform school or an asylum. Or maybe when we played games it was with other people as opposed to computers or phones.
My conclusion is the availability of firearms or large-capacity magazines is not the problem. The problem is our secular society!
JAY WILKINS
Hot Springs Village
The legacy of Trump
Trump thinks he will surely be sainted. When he won, over half of us fainted.
With civility lacking and Russian mass-hacking, his victory will always be tainted.
RUSSELL LEMOND
Little Rock
Cannot stop scourge
Here, in the most advanced and powerful nation on earth, we have a serious defect. In this bastion of freedom dedicated to justice for all, we cannot stop the shootings in our nation's schools.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. When our leaders are asked to do something--anything--to rid our cities, towns or hamlets of this killing scourge, they have shown great "concern," offered their "thoughts and prayers," but failed to act. Some of them say that the law, our Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the right to bear arms prevent them from acting to limit the ownership of guns of the types of weapons available for sale. If that is the case, the Second Amendment must be viewed as a flawed one. It was written to ensure we could have a properly armed militia and to have reasonable means to protect our homes and families. It was never meant to deny us the ability to deal with the challenges we must face today. We have made changes to our Constitution in the past, a very cumbersome process. That approach can be avoided with a more modern interpretation of "the right to bear arms."
The gun lobby and the gun manufacturers will resist any action that could negatively affect their profit margin even in the slightest way. Of course, the NRA will resist any and all restrictions on gun design, use and ownership.
We as a people love and want to protect our children; as a society, we love our guns. With responsible gun regulation we can have both.
Please contact your representatives in Washington to address this issue. To do nothing is to say we are content with the status quo and are powerless--powerless--to stop the killing of our schoolchildren.
BILL FARRELL
Bella Vista
Wait ... please explain
Why, exactly, must we "harden our schools," as our president suggests? ISIS? Al-Qaida? Immigrants? The FBI? Lax gun laws? Please explain.
CHAIM GOODMAN-STRAUSS
Fayetteville
Must figure it all out
Why does the Republican Congress (the party of family values?) tolerate the president's immorality, lying and crude remarks? Because they're getting some of their historically failed policies from him. Give to the wealthy, let it trickle down and all will be rosy, but most of it stops at the top. There will be a little spurt at the beginning to make a reputable showing, but it won't last.
It seems we have to go through this each generation, until people learn that it never works. Greed won't let it work, and somehow greed is never accounted for in their equation. Plutocrats?
The United States Constitution was based on equal opportunity, meaning the least shall have the same voice as the rich and powerful. It all flies in the face of the representative republic that was set up for us. Our representative freedom is in jeopardy and a one-party system is on the horizon. The voters have to figure that out before it's too late and they lose their freedom of choice.
MILLIE FOREE
Bella Vista
When it was written
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been much in the news lately, A look back in history to when the amendment was written might help us understand just what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it.
The amendment of course refers to the right of a citizen to "bear arms." When the amendment was written in the year 1789, the only "arms" one could bear was the musket, a single-shot long rifle that had to be reloaded by hand. A skilled marksman would do well to get off three shots in a minute.
If the founding fathers had been told that someday there would be a weapon that could fire over 100 rounds per minute and reloaded in seconds and available to the public, I feel sure they would have worded the amendment entirely differently.
If you picture a "well-regulated militia" equipped with muskets gathering on the village green when needed, you have some idea of what the true intent of the Second Amendment was. I don't believe it was ever intended to be used to justify the sale and possession of the weaponry we have at our disposal today. Maybe it's time to amend the amendment.
JON McQUIRTER
Hot Springs
Editorial on 02/25/2018