A line in the sand
Rep. Virginia Foxx’s guest column (“Second Amendment rights ‘…shall not be infringed,’” Feb. 5) misses several points. For one, she doesn’t tell us where her “line in the sand” is that determines what kind of arms a civilian can possess. Can I own surface-to-air missiles? How about anthrax or smallpox? Sarin? Nuclear arms? I believe I would be considered a terrorist if I possessed these, so my right to bear arms is already infringed upon (thank goodness!).
My line in the sand is with any weapon that can fire more than six or eight bullets without reloading — I see no reason that any civilian needs more powerful weaponry.
The Second Amendment, as she notes, speaks of a “well-regulated militia.” I suggest that whenever people get gun permits, they be required, for two or three days a year, to attend programs about gun safety, anger management, first aid and disaster relief. In this way, we could develop a well-regulated militia that could be a big help during emergencies. Gun owners would understand that owning weapons is not just a right but has attendant responsibilities.
And there is no “rush to action” — for decades, thoughtful citizens have begged our leaders to face this issue, to show transparency with the statistics regarding U.S. gun deaths and to stand firm against the NRA’s inane leadership and the gun industry’s — and Hollywood’s — glorification of violence and horrible weapons. How many of us must die before we come to our senses?
LISA LOFLAND GOULD
Winston-Salem
No evidence
The letter “Potential consequences” (Feb. 5), about allowing gays to participate openly in the Boy Scouts, is so offensive and ignorant I can’t believe the Journal thought it worthy of printing.
The writer says, “There is not any doubt in my mind that many gay leaders and gay Scouts will not only engage in sexual behavior with each other but also will attempt to do so with Scouts who aren’t gay.” Maybe there’s no doubt in his mind, but I notice he offered no evidence to support his belief. “They would not be able to resist all of the many opportunities,” he continues, repeating the worst stereotypes of gay people as sexual predators and child molesters, a tactic used by hate groups to vilify gay people. This is the worst kind of fear-mongering against the innocent.
We allow men to coach girls’ sports teams and women to coach boys’ sports teams. We allow teachers to associate with all ages of youngsters of the opposite sex. If they’re able to “resist all of the many opportunities” to violate young people’s trust, why would we expect gay people to be different?
It is true that many men and women, boys and girls, will at some point have to deal with unwanted sexual advances — usually from someone of the opposite gender. Gay people are not significantly or statistically more likely to extend those advances than anyone else.
It’s long, long past time to put the bigotry and fear-mongering to rest.
PERRY MITCHELL
Winston-Salem
One question
To the writer of the Feb. 5 letter “Potential consequences” who is concerned about the “potential negative consequences” to his grandson’s “emotional health and psychological health” if he were to join a Boy Scout troop that included gays, I have only one question: If his grandson turned out to be gay, would he feel the same way? ROBERT KEYS
Winston-Salem
Sum It Up
Were the Boy Scouts of America right to take more time for consultation before taking action on its policy of excluding gays as Scouts or adult leaders?
