Letter: Unalienable Right of Self-Defense
The Right of Self-Defense
To the Editor:
No amount of mental health screening and no amount of gun control — even confiscation — will stop mass killings. Recently, in separate incidents in China, where firearms ownership is prohibited, more than 100 schoolchildren have been killed or wounded by murderers using knives, meat cleavers and matches and gasoline.
Honest cops tell us that our first line of defense against violence will always be ourselves. Because police have no constitutional obligation to protect anyone, the recent Newtown horror once again instructs us that to improve public safety, and to ensure the protection of ourselves and our families, each of us must rediscover, understand and be able to plan and act upon our own individual and unalienable right of self-defense.
On Jan. 2, the opening day of New Hampshire’s 2113-2014 legislative session, the New Hampshire House will vote on whether to adopt newly proposed House Rule 63. House Rule 63 would ban deadly weapons from Representatives Hall and its immediate surroundings. Democratic leadership in the new House majority wants to disarm all those whom we have elected to represent us.
Before dutifully obeying their leaders and voting to adopt new Rule 63, Democratic members might first pause to consider that killing sprees worldwide have taken place primarily in gun-free zones — on gun-free campuses, in gun-free parks, in gun-free theaters, in gun-free malls, in gun-free government buildings, on gun-free islands and in gun-free schools. Democratic members need to fully understand that the message their leaders would convey from a gun-free House of Representatives to the worst of the sociopaths living among us, is, “We’re defenseless; come and kill us.”
Thanks to Morey School’s Band
To the Editor:
The Orford Senior Center wishes to thank the sixth-graders and their music teacher, Ms. Blake, of the Rivendell District’s Samuel Morey School for entertaining us with their 6th Sense band. They were terrific and brightened our spirits with their Christmas and rock songs.
Mary L. Welch
Coordinator, Orford Senior Center
Alternative to Northern Pass
To the Editor:
The op-ed commentary “Northern Pass Remains a Flawed Proposal,” written by representatives of the Appalachian Mountain Club and the Conservation Law Foundation and published Dec. 26, opposes Northern Pass. The purpose of Northern Pass is to bring additional electric power from HydroQuebec primarily to Massachusetts. New Hampshire residents are reasonably concerned about the intrusion of tall, high-voltage power lines passing through their forests and mountains.
Building power-generation plants near the populations that consume the power removes the need for long-distance power transmission lines, which are expensive and at risk of interruption from storms and terrorism. Small modular reactors are new nuclear power generators that can be located near the southern New England cities that need additional power. These safe, zero-carbon generators, being developed by nuclear industry leaders such as Westinghouse and Babcock & Wilcox, and being reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are ideal replacements for retiring coal-burning plants.
How Good Are the Good Guys?
To the Editor:
My household owns a grandparent-vintage .22 rifle, which occasionally is used to kill a woodchuck in our garden. If Adam Lanza was a skilled marksman, he might have killed one person with a gun like this before he was stopped. Unfortunately, he wasn’t carrying a hunting gun.
The National Rifle Association says the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. A local citizen boasted that if he had been in Newtown, his gun could have prevented the massacre. Here is my question to the NRA and the would-be hero with the handgun: Are you ready to make good on your claims?
A criminal with assault weapons can drop a dozen victims while the good guy is still reaching for his gun. If you’re going to stop him, you have to see him before he starts shooting. Are you willing to do what it takes?
Will you never again bow your head to pray in church, because that might be the moment the criminal chooses? Will you never again carry groceries out of the supermarket, because you need your hands free to get your gun? Will you never take a video of your son playing baseball because you need to keep your eye on the spectators? Will you never chat with the cashier at Walmart, look at the TV in a sports bar or go swimming at the beach because at any of those moments, the criminal could open fire and you would not have seen it coming fast enough to stop him?
And if you are willing to make this commitment, if you and your fellow good guys are prepared to take your guns and your single-minded vigilance to every school, every church, every bus stop, every office building, every bar, theater, playground and shopping mall, every single public space in this great nation, then here are two more questions: Is this truly what you mean by “the land of the free”?
Wouldn’t it be smarter to get rid of the assault weapons?