Mass shootings are not work of NRA members
Domestic mass murder brings a flurry of outraged letters from folks who are justifiably upset, but cannot bring themselves to blame the mentally and morally deficient perpetrators. Instead, they blame guns. Or the NRA. Those writers have certainly convinced me they should never own a gun! Unfortunately they believe that no one else should own them either. It doesn't matter to them that the average NRA member is law abiding and better trained in the safe handling of guns. Ask yourself: Have you ever read of a NRA member going nutso? It is understandable that some folks, especially big-city people, are afraid of guns. Fine. I'm afraid of highly emotional people and shallow thinkers, but don't advocate eliminating them.
Without trying to justify military-style, semi-automatic rifles, which do not interest me, serious steps should be taken. Those steps involve responsibility for safeguarding home firearms and the responsibility of parents for the actions of their children.
But for those who prefer shallow thinking, here is my solution: NRA members are, to a high degree, law abiding, sober, hard working, mostly past the age of foolish youthful behavior and are family- and country-oriented. Therefore, all American citizens should be forced to join the NRA. This should result in a vast improvement in the behavior of our citizenry.
Wil Wing
Bella Vista
==========================
Partisan politics affected courts redistricting view
The lead editorial in the March 4 paper focused on partisan gerrymandering. The opinion piece praised the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for striking down a Republican-drawn redistricting plan. The plan was approved in 2011 by a vote of 136-61, which included 36 Democrats. The districts have been in place for three election cycles without objection.
In praising the court's action, the opinion piece fails to mention the Supreme Court decision was 5-2. A key point is Pennsylvania has partisan judicial elections. Five Democrats voted for the plaintiffs(which included the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters) and two Republicans voted against it. How about that -- partisan Democrats found that partisan Republican legislators had drawn an unfair district map!
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the Pennsylvania Constitution does not grant the judiciary any role in redistricting. Article Two of the United States Constitution specifically grants the various state legislatures the authority to determine district allocations based on the decennial census.
I agree with the editorial's premise that "gerrymandering" can result in clear partisan advantage. Some states have redistricting commissions. California created such a commission via a constitutional amendment in 2008. California's experience is noteworthy for at least one reason. After their commission completed its work, elections held between 2010 and 2016 resulted in only two districts being "flipped," according to the website Pro Publica. That's two out of 314 district elections. An article posted on the website Dec. 21, 2016, by Olga Pierce and Jeff Larson goes into great detail about the incredibly thorough job Democrats did of undermining the intent of the voters in creating the commission.
California is a deeply blue state in its political leadership. This could also happen in a deeply red state. I have no problem with the concept of a "neutral" redistricting commission. However, there are always seen and unseen forces furiously seeking political advantage, no matter what method is used.
It is unfortunate that your editorial writer failed to frame the argument to include the critical role a very partisan Pennsylvania Supreme Court played in this situation.
John Launder
Fayetteville
Commentary on 03/21/2018