Hack/MShelton

Repeal the

Second Amendment

Editor:

Following each mass shooting there are outrage, prayers and calls for change. The shooting in El Paso is no different. The proposals such as improved background checks and red flag laws are tiny steps to solve a huge problem. We need to go to the core problem: The Second Amendment.

The U.S. Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1787. Article 5 allows for amendments, and the first 10, The Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791. Since then, there have been 17 amendments to the Constitution. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. That was prohibition and proof that a failed amendment can be repealed.

The Second Amendment is short. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment made sense in 1791. Rifles were single-shot flintlocks, not high-capacity killing machines. The Second Amendment has been hijacked and makes no sense in 2019. What “well-regulated militia” did the El Paso shooter belong to?

We need to repeal the Second Amendment!

Leonard Kirschner

Litchfield Park

Civilian access

to military

assault weapons

Editor:

Once again, we have to play the “wait and see” game to see if the overpaid elected officials will continue to obstruct Congress or do the job we put them in office to do. Instead, it’s much easier for some, especially Democrats who are running for president, to blame Trump for the mass killings that don’t stop. As of this writing, President Trump and the First Lady flew to Dayton and El Paso to pay their respect to those who were killed and wounded. Face the facts! He would be condemned if he went or if he stayed in D.C. He chose to go!

This is not a race issue, but some who don’t use their brain for what God gave it to them are hellbent on making it a race issue. Ever since somebody who lost complete use of his/her brain allowed civilians access to military assault weapons, we have had to deal with mass killings! This never happened until these lunatics got hold of AR-15s, AK-47s, Uzis and bump stocks to convert other weapons into rapid-fire killing machines. These mass murderers come in all colors, so put away your race cards and shuffle the deck.

Until every one of our elected officials stops civilians from purchasing military weapons and they either buy back or confiscate such weapons, the carnage will not go away, but it will get much worse. We’ll all be shopping online for food and everything else and houses of worship will close. I guarantee you within five years civilians will be allowed to purchase more military weapons, from bazookas to tanks to F-16 fighter planes fully loaded with bombs and missiles. And, they will be available either at Walmart or Amazon. They already have rocket launchers. This insanity doesn’t happen in other countries. I have friends in Europe who tell me that all of Europe considers all of the United States as “the Wild West,” and they can’t believe that we are actually allowed to own even a handgun, because they can’t.

The Second Amendment was written 243 years ago, when the right to own a gun was guaranteed in order for people to hunt for food. It took almost five minutes to put a bullet and gunpowder into those ancient weapons. God help a hunter if he ran across a bear with no bullet in his rifle. Today’s military assault weapons can kill hundreds of humans in the same time it took to put one bullet into a rifle in 1776. It is way past time to amend the Second Amendment and get military assault weapons off the market for civilians and to stop mass murders. President Trump should have called back all members of Congress to get working on this project. They spent way too much time obstructing and not working for the country that they all took an oath of office to serve. They just take the money and run. Time to vote them all out, except Trump.

James Logan

Buckeye

Red flag laws

Editor:

Dear Sen. Sinema/Gov. Ducey:

To preface this, to say the childhood I had was a difficult one would be an understatement. Constant beatings which crossed the threshold of regular spankings were common in my childhood, with my abusive, gun-owning, alcoholic father and his family facilitating many of these beatings.

I am writing this letter to you not only as a constituent, but also as a first-generation Filipino-American immigrant and a former victim looking to have a normal life. In the wake of the recent shootings, I cannot stay silent as these red flag laws are reintroduced.

I am against these new red flag laws, as those with trauma-related mental illnesses, such as combat veterans who have served our country alongside traumatized individuals such as me, are open to abuses by these laws. These red flag laws could easily twist an innocuous comment posted to social media into a threat and cause an individual’s personal right to self-protection become forfeit in the eyes of the legal system — or worse.

The red flag system currently being proposed relies mainly on hearsay and rumors. This can be easily weaponized by individuals who consider themselves to be “concerned relatives.” Alongside this, the system is already poorly set up and violates the individual’s second, fourth, sixth and 14th amendments by denying an individual not only their firearm rights but their right to a reasonable search and seizure. It also creates an atmosphere where a fair and speedy trial is unable to be found, as the trial is already unbalanced and weighs against the individual whose firearms were taken away.

This system lacks oversight and does not properly investigate threats, making verification nonexistent. In its current state, this system could easily be used as a state-sponsored harassment campaign, which would allow the state to disarm an individual and in turn leave them open to threats against their life should any arise during these legal

proceedings to get their firearms back. According to the FBI, most murders are committed by people the victims know, so giving these very same people the ability to disarm their victims is unwise at best. The same laws being used to push for individuals to be disarmed for being deemed threats can become laws that allow criminals to disarm their targets.

In summary, the proposed laws compromise the right of the individual in the name of creating a false sense of security. Given that these laws were being reintroduced on the heels of our recent shootings, it is clear that they are intended for preventing further mass shootings. The caveat to this, however, is that it opens gun owners to state-approved reprisals in the name of public safety.

Eli Pagunsan

Phoenix

Health care

Editor:

As someone who has recovered from both diabetes and high blood pressure thanks to prescription medication, I have a firm grasp of what medical innovation can mean for someone’s quality of life.

These days, it is hard to turn on the news without hearing about how politicians are going to fix our broken health care system. But the truth of the matter is, for patients who are managing chronic and life-threatening disease, all we care about is not having to fight for our lives and with our insurance company to access our medication at the same time, and to one day be cured of our illness.

Washington should focus on policies that can immediately lower cost for patients at the pharmacy counter without jeopardizing medical innovation. A great example of this type of legislation would be prohibiting insurance providers and their counter parts from benefiting from rebates and discounts issues by pharmaceutical companies.

Health care should not be a political game, and at the end of the day, Congress should be protecting two things: patient access and innovation.

Mike Urness

Goodyear

Government

rate setting

Editor:

Arizona, as well as Colorado and several other states, has been deluged with millions of dollars worth of ads against “government rate setting.” These ads, targeted to 11 senators to whom they urge to vote “no” on government rate setting, are sponsored by DoctorPatientUnity.

Who is DoctorPatientUnity? The group’s website doesn’t disclose any information about the organization, including who is sponsoring it or where its money comes from. Del Cielo Media, the company that manages the group’s political ads, did not respond to a request for information from Denver’s 9News TV station. Because DoctorPatientUnity is a dark money group, it does not have to disclose where its money comes from.

The ads rely on scare techniques, but the ads don’t really explain how rate setting would lead to these alarming scenarios.

The ads do not address, for example, the fact that out-of-network doctors can charge whatever they want. A form of rate-setting would cap such out-of-network billing.

Is this a bad thing?

I don’t know why DoctorPatientUnity is running these ads, but I wish Arizona’s radio and TV stations and newspapers would do some homework and find out what this group’s real agenda is.

Ann-Louise Truschel

Buckeye

Election deception

Editor:

Does “yes” mean “no” and “no” mean “yes”? If you read the light rail proposal up for election, it would appear so. Who is responsible for this electoral deception? And if the deception is correct, why shouldn’t these people be removed from their offices?

Elections need to be trusted. Deception has no place in the elections process. “Yes” needs to mean “yes” and “no” needs to mean “no.”

Virgil Warden

Goodyear