Letter: Reader responds to writers' comments on gun control

March 13, 2013 

You can't shout fire in a crowded theater You can, but there are consequences if it's not true.

I have the solution. Let's take away everyone's tongue. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in," is what I think Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would say.

Consistency would require taking away everyone's tongue whenever some others misused their tongues. The results would be devastating, just as taking away certain guns would be.

The statement about shouting fire is often used to illustrate that there are limitations on free speech rights just as gun rights. Should only a short tongue, long tongue, or partially clipped tongue be allowed? Punish criminals, not law abiders!

John Williford's idea of the Second Amendment applying only to "flintlocks" (Letters, Feb. 19) just doesn't agree with the Justice Department's study nor the Supreme Court's ruling, period.

In reply to Victor Epperly's letter on Feb. 19, I wonder which he would say is the highest law of the land -- the Constitution or a law passed by Congress that clearly violates the Constitution and which the sheriffs would refuse to uphold?

Tim Taylor (Letters, Feb. 25) confused the issue of "arms." He knows cannons were in existence then. "Arms" didn't mean those causing mass casualties by one shot.


Tri-City Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service