More on guns

EDITOR: In response to the Letter to the Editor: ("Thank the NRA for Cold, Dead Children") in the Dec. 19 issue of the Review, I would like to add my comments. Mr. Schwenke's logic needs to be extended. Let's put the blame where it belongs, at its root causes. I believe the National Wood Association and the National Steel Association are the real culprits. If not for these organizations, guns could not be produced. If steel alone were banned, an additional benefit would be that cars could not be manufactured, thus ending the massive carnage on our roads. Of course, so-called "assault weapons" (fully automatic assault weapons are not available to average citizens have not been for some time) don't generally have wooden stocks anymore, so we'll also have to ban most plastics and other synthetic materials. By now, I guess you get the drift of where I'm going with this….

In today's society, it's always easier and preferable to blame someone or something else, in this case an organization that promotes safe and responsible gun ownership and use, such as the NRA, or an inanimate object, such as a gun. We certainly don't want to confess to the deteriorating moral condition of our society, especially when it may tell us that our permissive and liberal ways may have caused it. That fact is that this deranged individual could have done as much damage in this defenseless school with a machete, a can of gasoline and a match, or even a baseball bat! Passing more laws or banning objects won't help; only a change in our moral fabric will. Why do some people (perhaps the same ones that expect government to keep extending a free handout) believe that more restrictive laws will help when we can't abide by laws we already have? Isn't it already against the law to murder another human, no matter how it's done?

Perhaps we should consider simply outlawing mental illness? (Wouldn't passing a law of this type solve the problem?) Or violent movies, TV shows, and video games? Or the liberal media's circus portrayal of these vicious acts that, for some reason, bring out more deranged people trying to get the public's attention? Or what? I don't pretend to know the answer. But I do know that banning certain types of weapons is the easy and undoubtedly ineffective answer.

We should all heed Benjamin Franklin's advice: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."

Jerry D. Frantz, V.M.D.

Columbia Cross Roads

God only knows

EDITOR: It has always struck me as ludicrous that persons who do not believe in a supreme being would bother to worry about and interfere with those who do believe in a supreme being. A supreme being that rules and powers the universe. What gain have they to try to vanquish any crucifix, statue, or any manner of worship?

How can you keep an atheist from practicing his non-religion? Send him to an Islamic country. They've got a whole lot of religion and you'd better be practicing it every half hour and facing Mecca. By living in a free country and believing what you want you then get to practice being an atheist or agnostic or whatever. If those who believe there is no God or an after life, just keep on harassing those who do believe there is a God. Otherwise this nation could become like the Mideast countries and atheists would soon become believers. In which case your charade in trying to disrupt the world's right of privilege to acknowledge a supreme being will end in defeat.

The more Christians there are in the world the more freedoms you have, no matter who you are. The Mideast is full of non Christians, and they are full of war, hate, and are killing each other.

Vincent Calaman