Letters to the Editor for April 5, 2013
Published: Friday, April 5, 2013 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 4:38 p.m.
Of course Gainesville Mayor Craig Lowe received special treatment during his alleged DUI arrest — he's the mayor! It is no different than when a popular college or professional athlete, pop star or movie star gets into trouble: They all get special treatment. Duh!
Anyone who is shocked or surprised by this has obviously been living in a cave for the last 20 to 30 years. Bottom line, however, is who cares? The man is human and made a mistake — big deal.
Anyone out there who has never made a mistake in their life, please apply for sainthood immediately.
Not teaching safety
Gainesville Police recently set up a sting at the crosswalk in front of Gainesville High School. My daughter and — 30 minutes later — my attorney both got tickets. Scores of other law abiding drivers got tickets, too.
My daughter thought there was an event happening and police were directing traffic. She proceeded with caution but did not stop at the crosswalk. An undercover cop was just standing in the median, not attempting to cross.
My opinion of GPD has dropped significantly. They are not teaching safety.
My youngest daughter attends GHS and uses that crosswalk five times a week. If they really want to improve driver awareness, I suggest doing a sting when school ends and kids are using the crosswalk. Then you will have plenty of opportunities to give citations to drivers and quite a few citations to the kids crossing the street not using the crosswalk.
In reference to the matter before the Supreme Court, it seems to me that when the religious organizations cannot control the people from the pulpit, they always ask the government to do it. These moral issues and the freedom thereof is the main reason this country was formed — a separation of church and state.
You can't have it both ways. Either these debated issues apply to all people or no one. If the church cannot control abortion, they expect the government to do it. If they want marriage to mean only what they want and cannot control it, they expect the government to do it for them. In every other instance, they want no part of the government.
Marriage as we know it today is failing not because of gay rights but because heterosexual couples are choosing not to marry but live together and raise families. Speak to your own house before you try to run someone else's.
It is astounding that virtually no one seems to see the major point in the gay-marriage debate. It is whether the Supreme Court should be deciding whether to change the definition of a word.
The meanings of the words "marry" and "marriage" have been established over millennia and should not be a part of the discussion. The question is whether homosexuals should be allowed to bind themselves together legally, and conceivably they should. At the same time, militant gays have already taken the word "gay" from us. Do not also take "marriage" and "marry." Use another term.
Strictly to kill
A ban on semiautomatic, military-style weapons is a no brainer. They are strictly made to kill people. No civilian needs an assault weapon that fires up to 100 bullets. The ammunition is made to cause the most possible damage to the victims.
As for the people who want to arm teachers, what good would that do? President Reagan was shot as he was protected by well-armed and trained guards. Our teachers are needed to do what they do, teach kids.
Anyone in Congress that votes for assault rifles should immediately be removed from office. They are bought by the National Rifle Association. I cannot believe Congress says they cannot pass legislation to prevent assault weapons from being purchased by civilians. It makes absolutely no sense.
Call and write your congressman in support of banning assault rifles and ask what they can be used for. This is critical.
In response to "Another senseless murder" (Sun, March 27): What this heinous crime indicates is the moral breakdown of a society that produces a teenager that would use a gun to do something like shooting a child in the face.
If the woman had a weapon she could have defended herself. Do you really think that outlawing guns will keep criminals from getting them? You are as blind about the operation of the criminal mind as you are about the guns that you seek to ban.
The sad fact is that banning these weapons will only put them in the hands of outlaws and leave law abiding citizens with no way to defend themselves. Leave it to the authorities, right? This crime happened in broad daylight. Where were the authorities then?