Unsafe in the Statehouse

Hiring armed guards to patrol the New Hampshire Statehouse is proof positive that Republican legislators don’t trust their own decision to allow concealed carry of firearms in the building. They have put themselves and others in harm’s way to accommodate the gun lobby.

By allowing armed citizens in the Statehouse, they are making the claim that guns are not a threat. Arming guards concedes that a shooting is more than a remote possibility and therefore guns are a threat. They can’t have it both ways.

Armed citizens and armed guards escalate both sides of a potential conflict and can end in tragedy. Since the guards aren’t allowed to disarm citizens, a perpetrator need only draw a weapon and open fire. It doesn’t matter how many armed guards are available, they can only respond to an attack in progress, and someone will already be injured or dead before the situation can be contained.

Are these elected officials really so callous as to blatantly put people in deadly danger for politics? How many other laws are these members crafting that throw their constituents under the bus to appease special interests? Concealed carry is not constitutionally guaranteed. To secure the Statehouse, they need to say no guns. But they lack courage of conviction to admit that restricting guns can be effective. I only hope no one dies for their lack of courage.

John Lunn

Newport

Threats to Domestic Tranquility

Democrats are making gun control an election-year topic of conversation, distracting the public from a real threat our government has been unable to eliminate — terrorism in general and radical Islamic terrorism in particular.

Firearm deaths are indeed tragic, especially when they involve the young and innocent. Still, columnist Steve Nelson is correct when he writes (“Half-Measures Won’t Do For Gun Control,” June 26) that the gun restrictions being proposed will not prevent slaughters like those we have recently witnessed. The recent anti-gun sit-in on the floor of Congress was indeed political theater and nothing more.

Some of Mr. Nelson’s suggestions make sense, such as requiring smart-gun technology to control who is using a weapon. But he reveals the real agenda of many on the left, not to control guns but to take them away from regular citizens, with his proposal to repeal the Second Amendment. Give him credit for honesty. Nelson argues that it is anachronistic and that guns are not needed to address “threats to domestic tranquility.”

While such tranquility was one purpose in founding our nation upon the rule of law, as reflected in the U.S. Constitution, it is not why the Second Amendment was added. Rather, the right of the people to bear arms was recognized so that they might band together to ensure the security of a free state. Liberty from tyranny is the purpose, and in our violent world, that concern is not an anachronism. Today, residents of Chicago are tyrannized by thugs, largely unchecked by government, even in the face of strict gun control. Self-protection is a natural right, and so should be having the means to do so.

If Nelson is concerned about domestic tranquility, he should look to repealing the First Amendment instead. Surely free speech is a much greater threat to a tranquil nation. Oh wait, that effort has already begun on our college campuses. Similarly, the aforementioned congressional sit-in hindered speech by others, and thus the conduct of the nation’s business. No tranquility there.

Tim Dreisbach

South Royalton

A Photographic Moment of Relief

Each day the newspaper is full of tragic problems: bombings, shootings, floods, wildfires, train wrecks. But amid all of this, it was a relief to see a prominent photo in Wednesday’s Valley News of a young boy in White River Junction whose problem was the retrieval of a tennis ball with a stick, too short for the task, through the fence of a llama pen. Thank you, Mac Snyder, for bringing this to our attention.

Christopher Harris

Weathersfield

Too Much Dog-Shooting Coverage

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Valley News has given such oversized play to the dog-shooting story.

It’s not a story that deserved to be on page one once, to say nothing of being on page one twice and taking up all of the back page of the section in addition.

I suppose the fact that the shooter was an off-duty officer made it more newsworthy, and I’m sure the incident could have been handled better, but it’s simply not major news, not important news, just inflammatory news.

It’s the kind of emotional overkill that smacks of the tabloid press. I’d expect to see it at the grocery store counter, but not delivered to my door.

Dick Drysdale

Randolph

Let Things Get Worse

I, for one, hope that Hillary Clinton gets elected president in the next election. She will be the final (I hope) example to the American electorate of how bad it is to have a liberal Democrat as president. Firearms will be even more restricted, and the Heller decision on the Second Amendment will likely be thrown out. So here’s a vote for Hillary.

Mitchell Ota

Hartford

Say No to Dartmouth Field House

At the June 21 Hanover Planning Board meeting, Dartmouth’s hired real estate appraiser from Rye Beach, N.H., said the construction of a massive field house 70 feet high and almost two football fields long will not lead to lower property values on Tyler Road. Unfortunately for Dartmouth, their expert’s testimony included zero evidence. He went on to compare the proposed facility’s impact to a Wal-Mart big-box store and a high-voltage power line. Surprisingly, he did not consult any local real estate experts, which may explain why he wrongly used Occom Ridge, Rope Ferry Road and North Balch Street as comparable real estate. He also inexplicably omitted evaluating North Park Street versus South Park Street property values.

After speaking with six Hanover Realtors, two Hanover appraisers and the Hanover tax assessor’s office, residents of the Tyler Road neighborhood can report that the consensus of local experts is that property values would decline, especially for the homes closest to the proposed facility. The only question is by how much.

Living within 200 feet of a warehouse structure, as opposed to a college playing field, would have a destructive and permanent impact on the quality of life and the value of the property in the Tyler/Chase neighborhood. If approved, this project would also set a precedent permitting Dartmouth to build similar structures abutting any neighborhood in Hanover.

The Planning Board would certainly never approve a Wal-Mart, a high-voltage power line or a giant wall to be built smack up against a single-family residential zone. Fortunately, the Planning Board is charged with protecting residential property values and has the authority to decline this application.

Please come to the Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, July 5 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall. For additional information please visit relocatedartmouthipf.wordpress.com.

John Colligan and Maureen Doyle

Hanover