Cloudy
64°
Cloudy
Hi 82° | Lo 59°

Letter: Less government, not more

A recent letter to the editor suggested that U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte be bold in supporting “common-sense” gun limitations (“Be bold, Sen. Ayotte,” Monitor, April 11). Just the opposite is true.

To be bold is to speak up and say, “Wait a minute! If we do that, it goes against the very foundation of who we are. We don’t want more government in our lives – we want less.”

We must find the right way to address these recent tragedies without setting ourselves up for serious unintended consequences. This gun limitation bill is not the right way. Law-abiding citizens don’t need it, and potential criminals will laugh at it. How many more “common-sense” limitations should we have on the Second Amendment? The First Amendment? What’s the next amendment to have a “common-sense” limitation?

We have far too many limitations now. Can’t marry whom you want in some states? Can’t get a supersized soda? Can’t give a cupcake to your kid for a school snack? This message is for you.

Don’t give in to these knee-jerk legislative actions without considering what additional powers the government will have over you. They only benefit elected officials who would rather get re-elected than stand up to protect our principles that made us Americans. Don’t support legislation that doesn’t solve the root cause and only takes away more of your individual freedom.

It’s your future – your choice.

DOUG THOMAS

Londonderry

A senator has but one duty...uphold the constitution. Thats it.

If the Constitution was not intentionally written in broad language, giving it some flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and changing times that the founders knew they could never envision, there'd be little need for a Supreme Court or the two centuries worth of constitutional scholarship that exists on the subject. Good people can disagree on the meaning of an amendment or a clause. The Founders themselves disagreed about various parts. But I think it' fair to say most of them recognized that a constitution was "for the living", and did not intend the ship of state to be guided solely by the 'dead hands" of the past. It's very ratification was the result of compromise--neither the Federalists like Washington and Hamilton nor the Jeffersonian Democrats were entirely satisfied.

a liberals manifesto on a living constitution does not make it so.....what makes it a living document is the amendment process that allows for changes but thwarts the daily barrage of the liberals attempt to mold the constitution to their daily leftist whims

Post a Comment

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