Put politics aside
Letter writer George Edmonds and others are quick to jump on the bandwagon when guns are used in a crime. His comments were not only incorrect, but they lacked knowledge of the facts. To say the National Rifle Association got a "rush" from the killing of innocent children is disgusting.
Unlike the liberal media, the NRA opted to not comment until the facts were in, then they addressed the "incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime." We protect our president with guns. We protect our liberty with guns, but Mr. Edmonds only wants to protect our precious children after the shooting starts.
Mr. Edmonds referred to "assault weapons" when there is no such classification. If so, I would ask he define the functionality of an "assault weapon." Is it a machine gun, a semi-automatic hunting rifle, a shotgun? A bolt-action rifle? Is it small caliber or large caliber?
This hysteria about "assault rifles" is a media-concocted ploy to inflame the uninformed. Laws do not stop killers and books do not stop bullets. Taking guns from law-abiding citizens is not the solution: Guns in the hands of trained people is. Let's put politics aside and our children first.
Can't legislate morality
The press and editorial comments have been hammering the constitution's Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association for allowing weapons in our schools, ignoring the fact they are banned there already. The press and people with low thinking skills believe banning weapons will stop violence. Chicago and New York must be violence-free since guns are banned there. The laws suggested are "feel good" laws which will have no effect on the bad people. They pooh-poohed the NRA suggestion of armed good guys, saying that will traumatize the children. Apparently they prefer allowing the criminally insane's tender mercies.
Laws are only followed by good people and gun bans do not work. You cannot legislate morality even if it sounds good.
Gregory R. Berg
Head east on Eighth
The complaint by the LaBelles of Huron Hills about high masonry walls on Division Street begs a response. Division Street is a Michigan state highway and is, consequently, as busy as a highway. The noise from this traffic could be considered a constructive "taking" in the constitutional sense, in that it prevents quiet enjoyment of one's private property if one lives right on Division Street.
Other state highways have high sound walls, don't they? The state, as a matter of public policy, recognizes a responsibility to mitigate environmental contamination (noise in this case). In the case cited, the private property owners didn't seek financial redress from the state, but took care of business themselves, to no one's detriment. This taxpayer thanks them for their self-reliance.
If you want period charm, head east on Eighth Street.