TO THE EDITOR: My 98-year-old mother is able to maintain an amazing level of autonomy because of my father having received a small pension from being a career enlisted man in the Navy and her supplementing this with the monthly income she receives from Social Security.
Changing Social Security benefits would put my mother over her own “fiscal cliff.” She and hundreds of other retirees, I’m sure, are in no better conditions. Why should she potentially suffer for the mistakes that much wealthier and more powerful financiers, businessmen, legislators and lobbyists were responsible for creating?
Keep the responsibility where it should be placed - not on those who have lived responsible, simple, honest lives. Keep Medicare intact, and allow my mother to live out life in dignity and peace.
TO THE EDITOR: I first hunted at age 12. I was on my high-school rifle team. My double-barreled Winchester once went 75 straight on a skeet range.
Gun owners must now consider what we would lose if we demanded restrictions to make us all safer. How many semi-automatic rounds do we need to kill a deer? With hollow-point bullets to tear the animal apart? Do we need a grenade launcher on our Bushmaster?
We know what rapidly fired, hollow-point shells can do to a classroom of 6-year-olds. Why are we protecting incompetent, sometimes psychotic gun owners? The answer I get is that any gun control will put us on the slippery slope to confiscation.
We have hunting licenses, passports, drivers’ licenses, etc. We get forest rangers, embassies, traffic lanes and lights, all to enforce rational laws. My rights would not threatened if the whackos found it harder to get guns and if those they could get were capable of killing only a few kids, not dozens.