Don’t need to fear concealed-carry
A letter writer eloquently expressed his concern over recent changes to the concealed-carry policy regarding public buildings (“Reconsider vote on concealed-carry,” Jan. 20 Letters to the Editor). I would ask the writer to consider the following:
• Those of us with concealed-carry permits have undergone the expanded background checks currently being touted by many gun-control advocates. The checks include local, state and federal scrutiny.
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
• There are many sources available supporting the fact that gun-related shootings involving concealed-carry license holders are minuscule when compared with the total.
• The majority of concealed-carry license holders have had prior firearms experience either in the military, through sponsored programs offered by local and national organizations, or as a part of their upbringing.
• Individuals licensed for concealed-carry are a matter of record where local, state and federal law enforcement are concerned.
Those of us who are licensed made the decision to do so for a host of reasons. We do not flaunt concealed-carry, nor do we abuse the privilege. We are law-abiding citizens and are counseled not to brandish a weapon unless the situation is dire. There may be serious consequences for making the decision to do so, and we do not take the privilege given us lightly.
I hope this sheds some light on the concerns many people express where concealed-carry is concerned.
Forty-one years after Roe v. Wade, many politicians still believe it is their right to restrict a woman’s access to a safe and legal abortion. These laws are often championed under the guise of supporting women’s health, but the restrictions are transparent attempts to make it impossible for a woman to get an abortion.
In some states a woman must drive three or more hours to the nearest abortion provider, and then wait 72 hours to have the procedure. You can imagine how difficult affording a three-night hotel stay or two 300-mile round-trip car rides on minimum wage would be for a woman.
Fortunately for those of us who do actually champion women’s health issues, the new generation, which has grown up in a post-Roe world, recognizes that a woman has a right to safe and legal abortion access. A large majority of millennials believe abortion should be available in their community.
Those of us who do not believe that the government has any business getting involved with the health decisions of women are standing in opposition to these draconian laws. We are gaining more support nationwide every day, and we will never stop fighting for the rights of women.
The statements of Gov. Sam Brownback and other Republican leaders about refusing to consider Medicaid expansion in Kansas (Jan. 14 Eagle) reminded me of Benjamin Franklin’s 1775 reaction to Parliament’s refusal of William Pitt’s compromise with the American colonies: “To hear them censuring his plan not only for their own misunderstandings of what was in it, but for their imaginations of what was not in it, which they would not give themselves an opportunity of rectifying by a second reading; to perceive the total ignorance of the subject in some, the prejudice and passion of others, and the willful perversion of plain truth … gave me an exceeding mean opinion of their abilities, and made their claim of sovereignty … seem the greatest of absurdities, since they appear’d to have scarce discretion enough to govern a herd of swine.”
We were warned
The 1970s musical “Evita” by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice was based on a true story about Argentina and Juan and Eva Peron. In their 1978 book, “Evita: The Legend of Eva Peron, 1919-1952,” Webber and Rice explained what they hoped the audience would take away from the play. In the introduction, Rice gives his prophetic view:
“I cannot imagine that Evita will convince anybody that the tactics adopted by the Perons in the ’40s and ’50s form an acceptable political creed, but for the record I would like to state here that the only political messages we hope emerge from the work are that extremists are dangerous and attractive ones even more so, and that a nation does not have to be a tin-pot banana republic to allow a person of the far left or far right to gain power – Argentina in 1945 was a sophisticated nation, and no country today, certainly not Britain, can claim with confidence that ‘it can’t happen here.’…
“From her earliest age, Eva Peron was consumed with a desire for power. That desire was fueled by her bitter resentment of the fact that she was born without privileges, and that many would never want her or accept her because of her humble origins.”
Rice also wrote: “When Peron finally achieved power in Argentina, he produced ‘justicialism’ (justicialismo) as his official doctrine. Justicialism was promoted by Peron as being the alternative to both capitalism and communism, a ‘third position’ between that of East and that of the West. In fact Peron presided over nothing more or less than common or garden fascism, but the concept of justicialism was a perfect focus for Eva’s fantasy of being a leader in pursuit of an ideal.”
Now, in the above text replace “Eva” or “Peron” with “Obama,” and replace “Argentina” and “Britain” with “United States.” Webber and Rice warned us it can happen again.