Concealed-carry bill is frightening
How disturbing and insanely ridiculous it is that the state Senate may actually pass a bill that would allow any Kansan to legally carry a concealed gun without requiring a gun-safety training class and a state-issued permit (Jan. 22 Eagle). The danger in this is frightening.
How could Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, possibly believe that this would lead to more protection of individuals, and not cause an increase in gun violence? Bruce needs to back up his belief with some absolute proofs before making such a comment.
As Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, said of the bill: “It’s scary. It’s like we are going back to the wild, wild West.”
Never miss a local story.
I, for one, will not be carrying a weapon to protect myself.
Instead of approving this bill, our legislators should require stricter regulations and laws to carry concealed weapons in order to protect innocent citizens. Perhaps society needs required classes in controlling our tempers, examining selfish rights, respecting human life and developing a moral conscience.
Renew gun rights
Senate Bill 45 would remove the rights restrictions currently in place and renew “constitutional carry” in Kansas by law-abiding Kansas citizens. It would negate the need for the class or the permit to carry a concealed weapon in Kansas.
Concealed-carry permits would still be valid and could still be obtained by those Kansas citizens who also want to legally carry in a state that reciprocates with Kansas concealed-carry permits. Thirty-six states recognize Kansas permits.
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
I urge you to contact your state senator and representative and inform them of your support for SB 45.
SB 45 will uphold the constitutional Second Amendment rights of Kansas citizens. It recognizes that if you are required to have a “permission slip” from the government to exercise any constitutional right, it’s no longer a “right.” It’s something you’re only allowed to do with government permission.
So the newly installed Sedgwick County Commission leaders do not consider that improving “the health of Sedgwick County’s residents by preventing disease, promoting wellness and protecting the public from health threats” should be part of the mission of the county health department (“Board’s new majority reverses decisions,” Jan. 22 Eagle). Instead, they want the department to manage “communicable diseases and disaster preparedness and response.” From this I read they are saying that we are not going to stop diseases before they happen, but you can be sure we will work with you after you are ill or disaster strikes.
Evidently they know nothing about communicable disease and health prevention – or if they do, they are allowing distaste of government to override the importance of community health.
It seems we need to step back 60 years and that the city of Wichita once again should have a health department that will work for the common good and not be swayed by political winds.
JOHN M. DAVIS
“End of air subsidies?” (Jan. 20 Eagle Editorial) seemed to lament the proposed ending to the Kansas Affordable Airfares Program and cited the $1.446 billion savings for airport users since 2002. That’s almost an unbelievable twentyfold return on the nominal $84 million given in subsidies to participating airlines.
Of course, not all Wichitans, nor Kansans, are Wichita airport users, but what a boon to those who are. You would think that the leaders of local government, including airport authorities, in the region would clamor to provide that benefit to their citizens – but they don’t.
So why don’t we patent the concept and market it to them, take a cut of the resulting proceeds, and benefit our citizens even more? But wait – littler Des Moines, Iowa, about the same distance to the Kansas City airline hub as Wichita, exceeds our air passenger traffic, even with slightly higher airfares, and beats us even worse on a per-capita basis. Maybe it’s us who should be copying the Iowans’ methods. (Note: They don’t use subsidies.)
HARRY R. CLEMENTS
How to respond?
I read in the paper the new schedule of musicals coming to Wichita (Jan. 22 WichiTalk). One of the big names listed was “The Book of Mormon.”
I just so happen to be a Mormon, and my response to the Tony Award-winning play was a huge sigh and a roll of my eyes. I mean, this play is not respectful to my religion at all. It mocks our beliefs and portrays our missionaries as incompetent fanatics who would do anything to get a baptism.
I read the article and wondered just what an appropriate response should be. Should I defend my religion the way some extremists do?
Nah, this is America. This is the country where we can have speech and religious freedoms, even if others disagree with what we are saying.
How ridiculous does it have to get before we figure out that we are all in this together? This is life on this planet and we have to share it. That means that we each have our own religious buildings, we don’t infringe on others, and we protect one another’s rights. Mine aren’t more important than yours or yours than mine.
So while I will not support this musical by attending, I will not be taking extreme umbrage to it being played in Wichita.
‘No’ to everything
A line from President Obama’s speech at the University of Kansas really hit home: “The answer can’t just be ‘no’ to everything.” He went on to encourage GOP lawmakers to “tell me what you want to do. Let’s get to ‘yes’ on helping more families get by.”
Crickets. That’s all I hear from the dissenting party. Nada. Nothing. “No” seems to be its answer for every problem in our country.
This is a frightening trend in politics, especially at the state and local levels, where we are about to see the results of putting people in office whose solution to everything is to just say “no.” No maintaining of our infrastructure, no progressive projects to keep us competitive, “no” to fixing their financially catastrophic ideas. No, no, no.
I’m sick of it. Why are we putting people in charge of government who don’t believe in any government? That is the definition of being an anarchist. See the problem?
GAIL A. FISHER
Believe in liberty
The headline “Koch’s view on criminal justice may surprise some” (Dec. 28 Eagle) implied that Charles Koch has no respect for the ordinary citizen. Are you kidding me? He and his brother David have done more for this country, this city and the average U.S. citizen than probably anyone anywhere at anytime.
Their success is to be honored. They believe in liberty, which is the most cherished thing an ordinary individual can attain. The headline should have read, “Koch’s view on criminal justice reveals his adherence to his libertarian philosophy.”
DON S. PETERS
Let’s assume you wish to present your ideas for election to the voters. The first thing you must do is to assemble a support group. Then you need to secure funding for exposure – media purchase, TV, billboards, posters and other ads. Then you must pass muster to the fund providers. If you aren’t Ross Perot, you need to assure your backers that you will support their program.
If you don’t see where this is going, “fuhgeddaboudit.” Basically, you don’t run for office if your financial backers can’t depend on your votes for their agenda.
JAMES D. WOOLLEY
Letters to the Editor
Include your full name, home address and phone number for verification purposes. All letters are edited for clarity and length; 200 words or fewer are best. Letters may be published in any format and become the property of The Eagle.
Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Wichita Eagle, 825 E. Douglas, Wichita, KS 67202
For more information, contact Phillip Brownlee at 316-268-6262, firstname.lastname@example.org.