Friday, March 7, 2014
Gun-rights advocates ask what kind of violence will be prevented by requiring background checks before private and gun show sales ("Culture, vocal foes foil Maine gun limits," Page A1, July 1).
Rifles are displayed at a gun show in Albany, N.Y., in January. A reader says Maine could take a leadership role in preventing gun violence by requiring background checks before private and gun show sales.
2013 File Photo/The Associated Press
We're told the Democrats in Augusta don't want to "upset" a vocal minority when only a lukewarm majority supports gun-safety legislation.
That's great. So now we have government by hotheads and extremists?
Maine has been a leader in the past for the nation, and this is a time for it to be one again.
No, we haven't had any horrible gun-violence massacres recently. But the country at large clearly has a problem with gun violence, and no doubt the place to find solutions is in the states.
The reasoned, thoughtful (read "lukewarm") majority in this great state understands that a moderate approach to gun regulation and safety is important, not only for Maine, but for the rest of the country, which often looks to Maine to show the way.
Bazookas are restricted.
The Second Amendment clearly doesn't mean there can't be any regulation. And consider what the amendment actually says – we can keep and bear arms because we need a state police.
With their tenuous argument, why can't the "vocal minority" be reasonable and come forth with compromises?
There's no majority favoring confiscation.
Can't we just discuss this reasonably in the public square, with the ground rule being that the majority of the state gets to determine our laws?
I am very disappointed that our Legislature seems to be saying, "If you're not a hothead or an extremist, you won't be listened to." Isn't it worrisome to all Mainers that quiet majorities are ignored in favor of loud minorities?
GOP philanderers excused, but Clinton still a scapegoat
Reading recent editorial pages, I've felt the need to double-check my calendar.
Is it still 1996 somewhere, and is Bill Clinton still president?
If not, then why is Clinton's well-known and well-discussed unfaithfulness to his wife still such a hot topic?
What is this fetishism/fascination with Clinton and his sex life that still seems to linger in some circles ("Another View: LePage achieved much this year, should not be slammed")?
They had their chances to ruin Clinton – not just two chances to vote against him, but also ample opportunity to lobby Congress to impeach him.
(It's worth noting that more than a few of the Republicans who sat in judgment of President Clinton, like Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, Pete Domenici, Bob Livingston, Tom Foley and several others, have had their own sex scandals involving both men and women.)
Those hypocrites have been allowed to either slink into obscurity or, like Gingrich and Sanford, been miraculously rehabilitated into candidates again. Yet Bill Clinton still remains a convenient scapegoat and punching bag for those who just can't let go of the past and move on.
I wonder what treatment awaits President Obama when he is finally term-limited out of office. In 25 years, will we be subjected to the pathetic sight of an elderly Rep. Darrell Issa still hounding a geriatric ex-President Obama hoping against all evidence and logic to gin up some sort of grand conspiracy involving Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service or Solyndra?
Unless the Republican Party rank-and-file end the silliness and put aside the sour grapes in favor of contemporary ideas and tangible results, the Grand Old Party will soon go the way of the Whigs.
Fittingly enough, it will be Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who can take credit for that as well.
(Continued on page 2)