Letters To The Editor
Letters to the editor: It’s about freedom
It’s about freedom This is in response to the letter by Jan Lella on April 25 (“Four questions,” Your Views). I am getting tired of all the Marco Rubio bashing on the radio and in print because of his vote against more gun control. The No. 1 thing people refuse to understand is criminals
do not obey laws. That is why they are criminals. Convicted felons, underage kids, illegal aliens, people with restraining orders and many more are carrying guns and should not be. Do the existing laws stop them?
All dealers must obtain a background check on all gun purchasers under existing laws, no matter if the gun is sold in their store or at a gun show. Nothing that is proposed will change that. I am not required to get a background check on a buyer if I want to sell a gun to my neighbor. The way I read the proposal, nothing will change that, and in my opinion it should not.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is not just about guns; it is about the freedom we enjoy as law-abiding citizens of this United States. I took an oath many times in my military career to defend the Constitution just like Sen. Rubio, and his opinion appears to mirror mine in that we need better enforcement of existing laws, not more gun laws that criminals would not obey anyway.
I will continue to vote for him, as will most of us who believe the Second Amendment is about freedom. If our Second Amendment rights are taken away, what is next, the First Amendment?
Eldon Peck Sun City Center Lame statistics The Obama administration’s parroting of poll numbers that say 90 percent of the American people support expanded background checks for gun owners falls under Mark Twain’s statement of “there are lies, damn lies and statistics.” After reading Jan Lella’s letter, I wanted to respond. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 4 percent of the population thinks gun control is an important issue. If the 90 percent number is pulled from the 4 percent, that makes it very weak. In the original Reid bill ,borrowing a friend’s hunting rifle without a background check would be a felony. Or, how about a $125 fee for a background check, which equates to a tax for legitimate gun owners? Just like Obamacare, had they passed the bill to find out what was in it, we would be screaming to high heaven. The 90 percent figure Obama throws around was based on the results of a Washington Post-ABC News Poll that asked, “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?” That question is quite different than a straight out “do you support universal background checks for all gun sales?” The poll was taken by a little over 1,000 people in mostly liberal-leaning states. While gun control advocates try to make it seem like gun owners are just a small vocal minority, it is the gun control advocates who are the real minority. So, stop throwing out lame statistics to push a cause that only 4 percent of the population cares about. If you want to be angry at one of our senators, it should be Bill Nelson. Nelson voted in favor of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty in violation of the U.S. Constitution. I applaud Sen. Rubio for voting against the treaty and against expanded/universal background checks. Rubio is voting with his constituents. Expanded background checks could lead to confiscation. Don’t put it past the far-left liberals. Judy Wise Plant City Call it like it is Regarding “We can’t even agree on what to call them” (Other Views, April 23): Just to make things clear, according to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: An alien is a “foreign-born citizen.” An immigrant is “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence (legally).” Illegal means “not according to or authorized by law.” A person who crosses our borders without permission is breaking our laws and is an “illegal alien” — so call it like it is! Betty Dobson Brooksville An approach that works I was so exhausted from sitting in the Hillsborough Animal Advisory Board meeting at the county building Wednesday until 11 p.m., but your obviously thrown-together “view” reflected no attention at all (“County tangles with wild cats,” Our Views, April 24). You really amazed me this time. Had you done any research, you would have seen how more than 90 other communities in the country (including Jacksonville and Manatee) are doing well with trap-neuter-vaccinate-return. Please note, it’s not release. It’s an insult to think we release these cats like I do to a gecko in my backyard.
If you had done your research, you would have seen that Fish and Wildlife declared years ago that there is nothing in the state statutes that makes feeding cats illegal, and you would have recognized that there is nothing new with this plan. It’s being done every day. Our county shelter kill rates would be much higher if not.
Had you done any research, you would have seen that the number of emails going to the county commissioners are about 90 percent for, and 10 percent against, TNVR.
We’ve already tried “Catch and Kill.” And the sanctuary plan would cost (first year only) more than $3 million. What’s next for The Tampa Tribune Views section? More lenient gun laws?
The writer is executive director of the Animal Coalition of Tampa.
The Daystarter: Freeze warning in northern Tampa Bay; Pinellas works to reduce 911 calls; fact-checking Putnam’s sanctuary city claims; should Dirk Koetter be fired?