Then and now

Dear Editor:

Wow, Alice Lillie, that was an unpleasant review of your idea of what the second amendment, written in the 18th century, means to us in this bullet-riddled 21st century. Just wondering if you missed the “well regulated militia” part. [COURIER, August 16].

Moving on to some up-to-date proposals that might help keep us safer in our neighborhood.

Since the president of the United States has determined that killers shooting people to death is a result of their mental instability, perhaps we should require that all gun owners in the US submit to a psychological evaluation to determine their fitness to possess a firearm.

Of course, that would be in addition to a thorough background check; proof of their ability to pass a stringent course in gun use and safety; as well as confirmation of sufficient insurance to cover all costs when an owner’s gun causes damage to person and property.

Lanore Pearlman

Claremont

Complex problems

Dear Editor:

In this great country of ours—bullies, thugs, charlatans, crooks, the power hungry and politicians—all want to take your money and/or civil rights for their benefit. Who will fall prey?

The anti-gun movement has pushed their ever-changing interpretation(s) of the Second Amendment over the last 50 years in the hope that people will be confused with the simple wording and forget that the Founders—people who had just overthrown a government—wanted to make sure all citizens had the ability to overthrow their new government when it became intolerable.

Those advocating for the modification of civil rights use the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” metaphor while being ignorant that the quote was actually used to justify government censorship of political speech. They stand on graves and promise the feeling of safety for the “commonsense” exchange of your civil rights, and specifically the one right that sets the USA apart from every other country in the world—a guaranteed way for an individual to fight against the consequences caused by tyrants, bullies, mental illness, greed, hunger, chaos or evil.

Pretending to solve very complex problems with very simplistic solutions should cause thinking individuals to vehemently condemn and reject all such dishonest and emotional pleas.

Giving anyone or anything more control over you for a feeling is stupid and will rob future generations of opportunity and choice.

In a true cost/benefit analysis, according to the CDC under Obama, guns are used up to three million times a year to stop crime and save lives. Can we improve the current situation? Absolutely, but not by taking away civil rights.

Leslie Watkins

Claremont

Accuracy, please

Dear Editor: 

As Mark Levine’s letter began (COURIER, August 2), I found myself in general sympathy with his comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. But then, as the letter developed, I realized it was just becoming yet another anti-Trump diatribe, based upon more invented “facts.” 

Mr. Levine dislikes Ms. Omar’s anti-Jewish slurs, but manages also to include the by-now-frequently-distorted version of what President Trump supposedly wrote about her (and a few others).  

To digress for a moment, why is it that so many people repeat a distorted version anyway? I suppose it is a somewhat rhetorical question, as I believe I already know the answer. The so-called mainstream media—I do not include the COURIER here—these days so routinely distort what President Trump says, does and writes, we should not be surprised I suppose, that people come to accept an endlessly-repeated incorrect version as fact.

There was “Charlottesville,” and now there is the supposed “go back where you came from.” In both of these incidents, words have been rewritten and/or taken out of context. (For those who truly dislike Donald Trump, please, critique what he has actually done; not what he has not done.)

For the sake of accuracy and clarity, this is what the president actually Tweeted on July 14 about Ilhan Omar and a few others:

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”

Note the, “go back and help fix,” and the “Then come back and show us.”   Even in Twitterese, the meaning and the intent are clear to any person not intent on misrepresentation.

Nowhere did he write or say, as Mr. Levine claims he did, “you don’t belong here, go back to where you came from.”  But how does this even happen? The truth is so easy to research and discover. Donald Trump’s Twitter account is completely open to the public, accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

A word to the wise: Never believe the mainstream media’s version of what President Trump says (or does). Always look it up and verify it for yourself from an original source.

Douglas Lyon

Claremont

Omar locally

Dear Editor:

Beginning on May 24 with a letter from the Democratic Club of Claremont (DCC) and continuing through July 26, the COURIER published a sequence of seven letters dealing with remarks made by Representative Ilhan Omar.

While the editor of the COURIER is to be thanked for allowing the reading public to follow that extended exchange on a single topic, the fact is that, in the end, no newspaper can devote sufficient space for a thorough discussion of the relevant issues.

As a result, I have written an analysis of the ideas found in those letters which more completely examines what the various authors have said on the matter.

It must be noted that what I say here is pure me—none of the other people involved in these letters has seen, much less commented upon, what I have to say.

This is not a neutral analysis. I am committed to the support of the view originally taken by the DCC and to an understanding of what I saw going on in the exchange that is critical of those who would condemn Ms. Omar.

Merrill Ring

Claremont

[Editor’s note: To read Mr. Ring’s analysis in full, please visit our website at claremont-courier.com. —KD]