A recent letter scolded liberals for focusing on the 2nd Amendment’s modifying phrase, “a well regulated militia” (think National Guard) rather than on the inferred rights of individuals to bear arms (think Rambo).
What about other people’s rights?
On May 14 an 18-year-old white supremacist murdered 10 people buying groceries in Buffalo. Ten days later another 18-year-old murdered 19 schoolchildren and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas. Weren’t the victims’ rights to shop and learn and teach more important than two unhinged fanatics’ rights to bear arms?
Don’t give us the useless cliché, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Instead, consider something else that kills people: automobiles. People accept that without a driver, a car just sits in a parking space harming no one. People also accept that driving requires a license, which in turn requires a minimum age and periodic driving and vision tests. People accept that a car must pass inspection. And people generally observe the rules of the road: yield signs, traffic lights, and so on. We need similar rules for guns, including a required mental health assessment that is periodically updated.
But why? Why fret about the 45,000 Americans who died in 2020 from gunshots when nearly that many, about 39,000, died because of well-regulated cars? If driving regulations don’t prevent all those deaths, what makes people think gun regulations would? What’s the difference?
In a word: Intent.
Most car deaths are linked to factors like DUI, speeding, distraction, and weather. Very few — about 30 per year — involve driving with the intent to kill. But 97% of 2020’s gun deaths were intentional acts of suicide or homicide.
Simply stated, people with guns kill people.
Rebecca Kvam Paquette
Hanover
Defying federal law is stupid
Just when we thought things could not get more stupid, we read that the New Hampshire General Court has sent to the governor a bill that would make it illegal for any sworn state or local official to aid, abet or cooperate with federal authorities in the enforcement of any national gun control laws or regulations that do not line up with New Hampshire law.
Similarly dull is the reporting, which while running on for half a page, makes no mention of the obvious unconstitutionality of the legislation, it residing in the glaring fact that it constitutes an act of defiance to federal authority, in violation of the Supremacy Clause and every single oath of office taken in New Hampshire.
Vermont has passed laws preventing state authorities from cooperating with federal authorities when it comes to immigration status. It and many other states have passed laws to legalize, tax and regulate the sale of a Class A Federal Controlled Substance illegal anywhere in the United States: Marijuana. The Texas GOP does not recognize Joe Biden as president and wants to vote to secede from the Union; again. Now apparently, the Republican majority in Concord would have New Hampshire do the same; for legislation like this is tantamount to an act of rebellion.
How do lawmakers figure New Hampshire could benefit from another such act of stupidity, and to whom do they think it would appeal? Gov. Sununu might make history by signing such a bill. I don’t think, however, it is the kind he would like to be remembered for.
Tyler P. Harwell
New London
Parking plan for Lebanon project
is confusing
On Monday, June 27, the Planning Board will resume the public hearing on Recreo’s requests for a number of conditional use permits on their proposal for the former Village Market. The Planning Board deserves commendation for holding the many hearings needed to understand the depth and scope of this project and its effects on Lebanon.
This Monday, Recreo is requesting conditional use permits to allow an increase in the maximum permitted building height (one building proposed for 5 floors and the second building for 6 floors for a total of 152 units); and to allow a reduced minimum required rear yard and; to allow parking spaces to be located within the front yard. Also requested by Recreo is a conditional use permit to allow off-lot parking for 2 Mascoma St.; and to allow off-lot parking at 2 Mascoma St., and 21 Water St., for use by an office building at 10 Water St.
Hopefully, the developer can explain the need for this confusing arrangement. My interpretation is that there is insufficient parking for the two buildings that need an increase in the maximum building height to provide 152 units. And, as yet, there has not been a defined proposal for the third building.
The Lebanon Fire Department is awaiting a variance from the state Fire Marshal’s Office that all fire department access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet; and that all dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with approved provisions for the fire apparatus to turn around.
Please attend the meeting on June 27 at 6:30 in the City Council Chambers or attend remotely. You may also contact the Planning Board at planning@lebanonnh.gov or call 603-448-1457. Your choice, but be informed and be heard.
Frank Mastro
Lebanon