Hi 33° | Lo 17°

Letter: Ayotte did not represent her New Hampshire constituents

Background checks continue for individuals applying for business positions or entry into the military. They are accepted everywhere, except with Sen. Kelly Ayotte on the issue of purchasing weapons.

The background checks bill did not infringe on the Second Amendment. Ayotte’s stance is completely unfounded and wrong. She echoed the National Rifle Association’s fear-mongering. A recent survey showed 91 percent of New Hampshire adults support background checks.

Sen. Ayotte, just before you cast your vote, whose faces did you see and support? Was it the families of Newtown, Conn., who came to your office for your support? Was it the victims of Sandy Hook, the children with fear in their eyes and the teachers who tried to protect them? Was it the victims and families of the Aurora and Virginia Tech shooting or the little girl in Arizona who died when Gabby Gifford was shot? Or was it the NRA and lobbyists who contribute to your campaign fund?

Ayotte has shown once again she does not have the integrity or the courage to support the will of her constituents.

She is more interested in advancing her political future.



Legacy Comments3

There has been a glut of anti-Ayotte letters but one needs to realize that most of these were 1) Hodes supporters, 2) Democrats and members of Democrat committees, some who contributed to the Hodes campaign, 3) at least one has posted comments on a Socialist blog, 4) People who did not vote for Ayotte in the first place and would not in the future. The proverbial deck is stacked if one is to conclude anything by the number of critical letters. Yes, they are opinion but they mean very little considering the source.

She advances her political future by being an NRA darling and getting plenty of money and not getting primaried. Haven't you heard about Citizens United and it doesn't matter if 90% or 100% ir 51% are for something because the Congress owes its's allegience to the money men and not to its' citizens.

I don't believe for one minute that 91 percent of NH adults disagree with the Senator's vote. Where is the documentation for this claim and how was the result obtained? We all should realize stats and polls can be used to show whatever you want. Secondly, how would a person "advance their political future" by voting against the will of 91 percent of their constituents? That doesn't make sense, does it? We've been reading all these letters from people screaming about the "90%". Something about that doesn't make sense. Documentation and details, please.

Post a Comment

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