No compromise

EDITOR: In the Opinion page of The Daily Review on March 11, 2013, James Gash (an alleged farmer and obviously uninformed gun owner) wonders why the NRA will not compromise on the so-called assault rifle and large-capacity magazine issue. I also have to wonder where the editorial staff of The Daily Review digs up these anti-NRA pieces. I'm beginning to think that the editor may have an anti-gun bias!

Mr. Gash asks why any home in this country might have a legitimate need for an assault rifle (I can only assume that Mr. Gash knows that we are not referring to fully automatic military rifles that have been illegal in this country since 1934, but instead to such common semi-automatic rifles as the Ruger Mini-14, a gun that is used on many farms and ranches in the U.S.). I would point out that the reasons for owning one of these guns are the same as the reasons most police forces own them. There are situations when more is better! Suppose that, in the situation that he describes, Mr. Gash's wife had encountered a gang of thieves that night, not just one stranger. Perhaps one shot of warning may have sufficed, perhaps not. Of course, she could have called 911 and waited!

However, the real problem with Mr. Gash's willingness to compromise on the issue is that the compromising would continue. Make semi-automatic rifles illegal! Then pump-action shotguns. Then bolt-action .22s. Thirty-round magazines, then 10, then 5, and so on. Where does it all end? A quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein illustrates the point: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them … Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." The anti-gunners view this compromise as only the first step in total confiscation. We cannot let that happen. So far, the NRA has not allowed that to happen, despite Mr. Gash's opposition.

The Second Amendment is only one of the original amendments in the Bill of Rights that guarantee our individual freedoms. However, I'd argue that it is the most important one. Without it, all our other individual rights would be at risk. Thus, it can be said that the NRA does speak for all of us, including Mr. Gash. It stands for the rights of all U.S. citizens, including those of non-gun owners. Let's just hope that Mr. Gash knows more about farming than he does about guns and the Second Amendment!

Jerry D. Frantz, V.M.D. Columbia Cross Roads

EDITOR's NOTE: Guest columns that are run on the editorial page do not always reflect The Review's editorial opinions. Our goal is to offer readers a variety of columnists, both for and against current issues, as we have on gun control.

Guarding the Pa. casinos?

EDITOR: There was an excellent editorial in this newspaper this week that points up the stupidity of the Pa. state senators that applaud the assignment of Pa. state troopers to provide security for gambling casinos. Ludicrous. The excuses are as such offered by state Senator Robert Tomlinson of Bucks County who states that its warranted due to the heavy state regulation of casinos and the heavy revenue that the state extracts from gamblers.

The state police at present assigns 140 troopers to the casinos. Later this year it will be 151 assigned. The purpose of the state police is not to serve the casinos, but to serve and protect the public. Who in their wildest nightmare dreamed up this scheme? Surely, the casinos can provide their own security. They have been famous for excessive security on their own, so why must our state police agency assign 140 of its members to help guard the poor casinos? Is this a particularly favored business? Makes me wonder. It is not the only regulated private business that produces public revenue.

I would suggest that you who are reading this to contact your state legislature members with some hard questions. Our state police have enough to do, and we would be better served by them with those 140 members engaged in real police work. Let the casinos provide all of their security like any other business.

Harry Patterson

Ridgebury Twp.