Originally Published: February 14, 2002 5:15 p.m.
Sensible regulation helps frustrate gun criminals
Regarding the column, "Target criminal, not good citizens," by Don Fleming:
There may be good reasons for opposing any restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership, but the fact that "criminals don't obey laws" isn't one of them. Using that logic, why should there by any traffic laws or vehicle registration? After all, "criminals don't obey laws" anyway, so it is only the careful and law-abiding drivers who suffer inconvenience from traffic laws…right? Fleming distorts the issue by pretending that any attempt whatsoever to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is equivalent to totally "banning firearms."
Just as traffic laws and vehicle registration don't prevent all misuse of motor vehicles, and yet provide law enforcement officials with at least some tools to keep our streets safe, laws that require criminal background checks for firearms purchases provide at least minimal tools for keeping guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them – and only at a minimal inconvenience to the majority who use them safely and responsibly.
Race track is bad idea for quiet Chino Valley
I just bought property in Chino Valley last month. I plan to retire there in a few years.
I probably would have given it a second thought had I known about plans for a racetrack. I hope the town turns down David Brinkley's request. Chino Valley is such a beautiful, quiet town; it would be such a shame to spoil it with a racetrack.
I almost laughed when I read some of David Brinkley's remarks. 80 decibels, Ha! It would be more like having your house on 89 with trucks zooming by!
I would also like to know how it is supposed to lower crime rates. If everyone believes all this, I have a bridge for sale. If I were down there, I would have gladly signed the petition put out by (CRASH), and would have given Brenda Behrens a hand at gathering signatures. Keep up the good work Brenda!
Columns about creation scare evolution theorists
A recent letter revealed the real reason some people object to Tim Wiederaenders' columns on the creationist view.
People are upset because he may "convince" some of your readership! Anybody who disagrees with his or her belief in evolution must be superstitious, uninformed, ignorant, etc. Let me just state that I have studied the theory of evolution and the evidence for it. I am college educated, a professional. And I find the theory of evolution to be junk science.
Nothing in the fossil record supports evolution. In fact, what evidence does exist supports an instantaneous creation. It is truly a pity that people who believe the lie of evolution cannot tolerate anyone with a different belief, and have to resort to scathing personal attacks.
And boy, they do not want anyone even to suggest another idea to them or anyone else if they can prevent it. Keep Tim's columns on the editorial page where they belong. Because if they belong on the religious page because they deal with faith, any talk about evolution belongs in exactly the same place! It takes a whole lot more faith – and blind faith at that – to believe in evolution!
Bush State of Union doesn't thank Enron
President Bush's State of the Union Address had one major discrepancy (unless my ears deceived me). He made no mention of Enron, which contributed so heavily to his presidential campaign.
Without Enron's princely contribution it is conceivable that Bush's razor-thin victory over Al Gore might not have happened.
One might say that Bush rode to presidential victory on Enron's coattails. Yet, there was no mention of this service in Bush's State of the Union Address.
Is this gratitude?