Cloudy
30°
Cloudy
Hi 38° | Lo 28°

Letter: Prohibition doesn’t work

When I was in high school I was told that history was a mandatory subject because it was important that we do not repeat past mistakes. I would have to say that a lot of people must have skipped that subject anyway.

Let’s ban that gun to solve a very serious problem. Why? Because bans work so well. How pointless. In the 1920s we had Prohibition. Did it work? No. It was a disaster and it had to be lifted. Mobsters against federal agents. Mobsters against mobsters to gain territory. Back then they actually used real assault weapons. It was mayhem.

When I was a child, heroin was illegal. I’m retired, and heroin is still a problem. Today the banned-drugs trade generates $20 billion annually. More than any legal business. Pretty good for something that’s banned.

Today you want to ban guns. Like that’s going to make them go away like it did for alcohol and drugs. While you’re spending your time and energy on banning guns and pointing your fingers at the NRA and gun owners, all of which doesn’t do any good at all, maybe you should enroll in night classes and learn history. You are part of the problem if all you can offer is another useless ban.

ROGER A. FORCIER

Pembroke

Legacy Comments16

FACT - Factcheck has been proven to be WRONG

"Back then they actually used real assault weapons. It was mayhem." Q: What did Roosevelt do about the "mayhem"? A: Gun control National Firearms Act legislation http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Firearms+Act+of+1934 Q: Now that we have idiots using AR15s and Bushmasters to cause "mayhem" in schools, movie theaters, and malls, what should we do about it? A: Gun control legislation. "When I was a child" I was not gunned down in my 1st grade classroom.

Roosevelt was ONLY considered a great president because of his leadership during WWII. His policies were socialist, collectivist and many were misguided. The deterioration of our society has led to the behavior of people who would commit such heinous crimes. You want to punish everyone for the actions of a few. Guilty until proven innocent, throw the baby out with the bath water........that is how things are done in a despotic, totalitarian society, not in this country.

What drivel! Tell that one to those who lived through the Great Depression. Roosevelt was highly regarded by most of the country throughout his tenure. Your description of his policies during the depths of the Depression is laughable--it parrots the twaddle the far right spouted then: "traitor to his class" etc. It was rubbish then, and it still is. A fairer description is that he actually saved capitalism in this country from its own excesses. Roosevelt entered office as a deficit hawk, willing to experiment. In 1936-37, he tried cutting spending--in keeping with the advice he got from his Treasury Sec. But when unemployment went up, he quickly returned to more spending to put people back to work--still the key today. Try reading from a broader selection of sources than the likes of "Newsmax".

Actually, anybody with common sense and a knowledge of history could take the lessons of what FDR did and apply it to today's recession. Very similar. Some of the topics that could be discussed are the Federal Reserve, the unemployment rate, inflation and so on. But I do not expect you Bruce to discuss any of those historic issues, or how long the Great Depression lasted, and what the outcome was of FDR's reign. Because if you did, you would have to admit there are a lot of similaraties today. And for some, that might mean, that our current economical situation is in for a very long ride, progressing at a snail's pace.

Why don't you elaborate on your claim that Obama borders on the "edge of treason"? We could use a good laugh. Is it because of the "23 executive orders" he issued recently? Or because of the whacked out theorizing of Dinesh D'Souza? Or all of the above and more? http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/18/seven_reporters_who_falsely_claimed_that_obama_signed_23_executive_orders.html

I think his is the first to appear in this paper. But most folks know that a universal gun is not going to happen--it's unrealistic given our nation's long history with guns, and many would regard it as unconstitutional. Neither the president nor the vice president has (or ever will) make such a proposal. More important though, is that the occasional letter like Bernie Ash's (not the first from him on the topic--he's been a long-standing opponent of guns,as is his right) is used by hard core gun-rights absolutists to feed their paranoia about losing their "rights". For example, Jack Kimball's unhinged comments in today's Monitor regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment: it means "we must have compatible weapons to those who would be our oppressors" in the government.

To clarify: I meant to respond to Hunter Dan, and his reference to a letter in the Sunday Monitor.

Senator Obama's stand on guns, right to carry concealed weapons, and banning handguns is on record. Also on record is how he voted in regards to defending your life at home or your domain. Paranoia is the new word for the left. The latest in a long list of words they use to label folks who disagree with their agenda. Only folks on the right are paranoid. Some would say the War On Women is paranoia. Some would say the busting unions stance by the left, stating we will go back to a time of enslaved workers is also paranoia. Some would say that believing the 1% want to take over the country and bring us to a class ruled society is also paranoia. Some would say that the belief of the left that folks disagree with President Obama because of his color is also paranoia. The left knows a lot about paranoia. And they use it further their agenda.

Jack Kimball's statement is paranoid and delusional, and in its implications borders on the treasonous: what terrorist organization will he deal with to get weapons "compatible" to those the government has, so that it won't "oppress" him? I would hope responsible gun owners in NH would disavow Kimball's statement and the sentiments behind it in as strong as possible fashion. You don't defend him--instead you do what you accuse others of doing--change the subject, and as usual, without offering much substance to back up your claims about what "some would say." Your "some" might say lots of things--but they'd be wrong far more often than.

Treason? You have to be kidding!!!!! Look to your fearless leader Obama if you want to see actions teetering on the edge of "treason". LOL, an extremist calling another extremist "treasonous" and extreme.

Here's a link to the "Combatting Terrorism Center" at West Point, and their report on the potential terror threat created by the far right--which includes "anti-Federalists" and white supremacists, among others. http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right

An accurate accounting of Obama's position on gun rights & guns can be found here: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

NOBODY with any sense is talking about banning all guns. Reasonable people are talking about steps we might take to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, and whether or not any Tom, Dick, or Harry should have unfettered access to assault weapons with high-capacity magazines. Join the discussion, don't divert it with red herrings.

Oh yes they are John, read Mr. Ash's letter in today's Monitor.

I can't find Mr. Ash's letter on this new bollixed-up website. Let me just point out I said "nobody with any sense." There are wing-nuts of all persuasions with all sorts of crazy ideas totally detached from reality out there, I discount them all. Lets focus on the honest differences reasonable people have with each other.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.