Evidently the NRA has been right all along. The only way we can truly be safe is if we are all armed with assault rifles. Just think, if everyone at the Pulse night club had been carrying an assault rifle, the terrorist would only have gotten off a few shots before he would have died in a hail of bullets. Of course, some people would have been killed by friendly fire but I bet the total death rate would have been less than 50.
Ever since the Scalia court reinterpreted the Second Amendment to mean total freedom to arm with military hardware, the NRA lobby has tried to warn us that if you are not carrying, you are a victim. Well the incident at Pulse is a clarion call to the truth of the NRA’s effort. The gun manufacturers and our legislatures, especially in the South, have done their utmost to help arm American citizens. We will know that we have reached true safety when you strap a Glock onto your child as he or she leaves for kindergarten.
However we have one big obstacle in our path to complete safety. We have 50 to 60 million people who cannot afford an assault rifle. These unfortunate people deserve protection also. So we need a government program to buy an assault rifle and at least 100 rounds of ammo for each and every citizens earning below the poverty line. To leave those citizens unprotected would be criminal neglect. Some will say that we cannot afford such a big government expense but they miss the obvious. When everyone is armed and responsible for their own safety and security, we can abolish all police departments. That saving, by itself, would pay for the Poverty Arming Program. Who needs police when we can all protect and enforce our own security and space. Then we will all be living in a safe, happy, armed, insane NRA paradise.
Never miss a local story.
N. A. Pietrzak Sr., Macon
Trump critic replies
In the June 17 letters, two writers raise objections to my June 14 letter, “Unpatriotic Republicans,” that deserve answers.
George Scoville asks why I didn’t include Newt Gingrich on the list of Republicans whose endorsements of Donald Trump sadden me. The answer is that, when I submitted the letter, I didn’t yet know about Gingrich’s endorsement, and if I had, I certainly would have mentioned him. There was considerable lag time between submission and publication, which any regular writer of letters to The Telegraph knows is not unusual.
It should be noted that prominent Republicans who, as of this writing, have declined to endorse Trump include both President Bushes, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina, while those who have publicly announced their opposition to him include Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Ron Paul, three sitting Republican U.S. senators, two sitting Republican governors and prominent conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Erick Erickson, Bill Kristol, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Stephen Hayes, Mona Charen, Linda Chavez and Jonah Goldberg, among others. Moreover, no fewer than 121 present and former national security officials and other experts, who describe themselves as “committed and loyal Republicans,” have signed a document calling Trump “utterly unfitted to the office” of president and declaring that “as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe and which would diminish our standing in the world” (viewable at warontherocks.com). Will any of this give the Trumpites pause? Probably not.
Meanwhile, in response to my pointing out that the majority of Republicans who voted in the primaries voted for someone other than Trump, Michael Collins asks, “Then how did he get elected? … That didn’t happen with the patriotic Democrats.” Of course he means “nominated.” The answer is that a flawed nomination process allowed someone who got only a plurality of primary votes, not a majority, to lock up the nomination before the convention, which is where the candidate should be chosen in such a case. Let’s hope the party works to fix this before the next time around. As for “patriotic Democrats,” I said nothing about Democrats being patriotic. Some are, some aren’t — just as with Republicans.
Collins finds my fear of Trump’s having his “finger on the nuclear button” to be “inane,” noting that “No one man can launch a nuclear strike.” Actually I said “nuclear trigger,” not “button” (if you’re going to attack me, at least please quote me accurately!). This is a metaphor — there actually is neither a nuclear trigger nor button, but nuclear codes. In any case, is Collins, or anybody else, comfortable with the prospect of an enraged President Trump trying to launch a nuclear strike while subordinates try to restrain him?
Collins says that “(Mann) simply bleats George Will and Hillary Clinton,” but I said not one positive word about Hillary Clinton. As many besides me have noted, the Clinton-Trump matchup is a most unfortunate one and a textbook case of choosing “the lesser of two evils.” But as Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has courageously said in refusing to fall into line behind Trump, there must “come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”
David Mann, Macon