Quinn’s letter off base

In his letter of October 10, Bob Quinn expresses his disagreement with an earlier letter by Richard White titled “We don’t need to support Republicans.”

Much of Quinn’s letter is devoted to his own opinions as they clash with those of White, a subject that’s not really disputable, and to his own personal background, which is clearly commendable. He does make three points, however, that can be weighed because well-known facts are involved.

He points out that the national debt has doubled under President Obama. Close enough, but White’s letter didn’t deal with who is responsible for the debt. He requested merely that presidential candidates be required to answer questions about the debt during their campaign debates.

He claims that White’s estimate of sea level rise, 7 inches, is false and that the correct figure would be in fractions of an inch. White’s letter clearly referred to his estimate as “during the 20th century.” In that context, the best data I could find comes close to White’s estimate. Rises in fractions of an inch apply only to averages for single years. Incidentally, yearly data since 1992 show a substantially faster rate of sea-level rise than during the 20th century overall.

Finally, concerning Quinn’s claim that the vote recount in 2000 was not stopped: On December 12, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it by ruling that the recount could not be completed in time for a “safe harbor” date, and that a lower court’s requirement for the recount was unconstitutional. Perhaps the recount continued informally, but not in any legally valid sense.

Jim Burns    

The letter above was published in the Waynesboro, Virginia News Virginian on October 12, 2015. Text of the October 10 letter by Bob Quinn follows. Readers may note that the title on Quinn’s letter preempts a title that could well have been used by me to describe Quinn’s letter. 

Writer’s rage ignores facts, decency

Richard White’s letter in Thursday’s paper is so full of inaccuracies it could have come from the White House.

Where to begin? In attack­ing Republicans, he first laments the outrageous na­tional debt that has doubled under Barack Obama. Talk­ing about climate change, he claimed that sea levels have risen 7 inches. False. The best scientific measure­ments are in fractions of an inch

The vote count in 2000 was not stopped, it went on until every hanging chad had been examined as reporters hung on watching till the end but their liberal editors did not report that, preferring to let the big lie of cheating remain in play.

His most egregious slan­der, however, is categoriz­ing the conservative voters of 2013 as “religious bigots and gun nuts.” How far have we fallen when America’s Christians can be called big­ots and gun owners “nuts” implying mental illness.

I spring from an intact Christian home trained in honesty, respect, charity and reverence for God, my par­ents have been married 70 years this month and remain faithful worshipers.

As for myself, I took firearms training in the U.S. Marine Corps and put my life on the line in Vietnam to preserve his right to his opinions. Keeping a firearm in my home for self-defense (getting too old to fight or run) endangers nobody but prospective burglars. I have no criminal record nor any problem with mental illness except deep annoyance at Richard White’s miserable ignorance.

He has swallowed the pathetic lies of the left with little or no thought and is in­fecting all around him with his slander and hateful rage.

                                                                                                          BOB QUINN

Finding a Balance on the Second Amendment (Expanded)

This post has been expanded to include the Lilly letter of May 11, 2015.

 In a Letter to the Editor dated May 11, Curt Lilly explained to us his view of the goals and implications of the Second Amendment. I believe the key part of his message is this: “The Second Amendment did not say that citizens could only have weapons that were inferior to [those of] the police or armed forces. By definition, they would need weapons that were just as potent to have any chance of wrestling the government back from despots and their co-conspirators.”

In an earlier letter, I pointed out danger in that interpretation. It places no limits on the power of the weaponry that can be placed in the hands of law-abiding citizens and of criminals and terrorists, too. There are nuclear weapons in existence today that could be manufactured privately and sold openly, needing only the protection of the Second Amendment as the letter-writer has interpreted it.

Modern weaponry has enormous power, far beyond anything that the founding fathers could ever have imagined. Those who speak of the Second Amendment as outdated are concerned that it does not rationally reflect and consider this fact.

So how do we support the Second Amendment? I believe we need to work on updating it – building in a rational response to the power of modern weaponry – before the letter-writer and his colleagues lead our nation into the status of an armed camp that would be unacceptable to most people. So unacceptable, perhaps, that it could weaken support for the Second Amendment itself.

Regrettably, the letter-writer lowered the tone of discourse by questioning the patriotic credentials of those who disagree, and invoking the old saw of “love it or leave it.” I have paid dues as a World War II veteran, a reservist through the Korean conflict, and a civilian serving his country on the front lines in Vietnam. I’ve had a lot of travel abroad. I have no intention of leaving the United States.

                                                                                        JIM BURNS

The letter above was published in the Waynesboro, Virginia News Virginian on May 20, 2015. Text of the May 11 letter by Curt Lilly follows.

Amendment has two goals

In an earlier letter, a writer suggested that armor-piercing bullets should be banned. The reason for the Second Amendment was twofold — first, it provided personal protection; sec­ond, it armed the citizenry in case the people had to take back the govern­ment from rulers that violated the Constitution. The Second Amendment did not say that citizens could only have weapons that were inferior to the police or armed forces. By definition, they would need weapons that were just as potent to have any chance of wrestling the government back from despots and their co-conspirators.

The writer called it an “outdated amendment.” Liberals would like you to think you can just brush the Consti­tution under the rug with statements like this, but that’s not how it works. In our government, you follow the procedure laid out in the Constitution to amend it. That keeps people like this guy from changing the whole basis for our government willy-nilly. Changing the Constitution is hard and time-con­suming — by design.

The writer also claimed that a major­ity of NRA [National Rifle Association] members approve of a three-week waiting period. He never backs up these outrageous statements with evidence, and I doubt that a legitimate poll with these results exists. He also said that walking the streets of the United States is more dangerous than all but a “few” nations. This is complete absurdity; obviously, he has not trav­eled to other countries.

Instead of trying to destroy our Constitution and making false claims about our country to make us feel guilty or bad — or making us do without fossil fuels (in his other earlier letters), water, electricity and personal freedom — I suggest he do something much easier: Quit trying to ruin our country. Go find a communist or socialist nation with the limits you love so much and move there.

                                                                                       CURT LILLY