Now
Fair
78°
High
83°
Low
68°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters 5/10: Why go higher?

Comments 35 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 12:06:10 am CDT

Because Lancaster County Assessor Norm Agena is required by law to value our property at 92 percent to 100 percent of its value, why on earth didn’t he shoot for the 92 percent?! 

Cindy Hochstetler, Lincoln

Gun owners not morons

So now we’re a bunch of blithering morons whose guns might fall out of our holsters. Or we might leave them in a public restroom after nature calls, according to Police Chief Tom Casady. He   would have us believe that 85 percent of the rank-and-file officers in his department also think the concealed carry law is bad and would put more guns on the street.

If the 85 percent number is true, which considering the source is suspect, we need to recruit clearer thinking police officers to Lincoln. Everyone I know who is in support of the concealed carry law knows how to take care of their weapons. Maybe Chief Casady doesn’t, but us regular old law-abiding citizens who take their Second Amendment rights seriously do.

What a pathetic attempt by the chief to denigrate gun owners. He acts as if the general public can’t be trusted.

I think Chief Casady and like-minded politicians are the ones who need the scrutiny. I think it’s time for housecleaning at the Lincoln Police Department. Maybe all handgun owners should begin carrying their weapons on their hip in plain sight and see the uproar that would cause. Think, people.

Larry F. Graham, Lincoln

Teach conservation

It seems more than a little ironic that recently you printed a prominent article on Page 1, Section B, about four Malcolm girls driving to Lincoln for the sole purpose of cruising O Street back and forth to the malls for sheer entertainment. Then on the opinion page the next day, Cal Thomas’ column was about our dependence on foreign oil and the oil-rich countries supporting insurgency and terrorism.

It is incredibly selfish and totally ignorant to use gas and cars, not for transportation, but strictly for amusement. Considering the price of gas, are teenagers spending money they have earned to support their pleasure? Or are their parents giving this money to them?

If so, shame on them. People ask why the high price of gas at the pumps? Ever heard of “supply and demand”? This is where a lot of demand is originating.

Does anyone remember conservation? Our oil usage could be cut substantially with prudent use of our cars. I was a small child, but I remember gas rationing during World War II. I don’t think anyone suffered too much from it.

I’ve read that the ’80s were considered the selfish “me” years. Can we all work to stop that now in this generation? It would help if our leaders emphasized this by word and example, if parents would clamp down on their kids’ activities, and if huge gas-guzzling vehicles were heavily taxed.

Our country, and eventually the world, would greatly benefit by cutting our gas consumption, which would cut our helping to support terrorist groups with our dollars, and teens may even find other sources of amusement.

Betty R. Bruno, Lincoln

Secure U.S. borders

I’ve been following the debate on illegal immigration, and I agree with recent letter writer Roger Day that our nation should aspire to the sentiments expressed on the Statue of Liberty.

But an inscription is not going to stop meth from flowing from Mexico to Nebraska.  A statue is not going to make up the $10 billion difference (according to the Center for Immigration Studies) between the taxes illegal immigrants pay and the services they use.  And a torch is not going to frighten away gang members who threaten our communities.

Day and others want to do everything at once. But this is like a doctor trying to set a broken leg and put the cast on at the same time. It just won’t work, and it could make the problem worse.

When we try to do everything, we often can’t get anything done at all. That’s what’s happening in Washington, where’s there’s been no progress on this issue in 20 years.

Ben Nelson is trying to break the logjam by focusing on border security.  That’s the right approach — everyone agrees we need to secure our borders.

David N. Wolf, Lincoln

Lack of understanding

Great job, Journal Star. Way to show your support for the gay community by printing Colleen Roser-Martin’s homophobic letter on the “Day of Silence.” That day was supposed to be about fighting prejudice and discrimination — not encouraging it.

As to Roser-Martin’s question of why “these people” have to be so vocal about promoting their “gay agenda” — they do it for the exact same reason people all over the country took a vow of silence that day — because the majority of the gay community can’t speak out. They can’t even talk to their own friends and family for fear of the prejudices they would face.

Roser-Martin’s comparison of being gay to having Irish heritage shows that she has no understanding of this issue at all.

Laura Cerveny, Lincoln

Support for term limits

Have you ever seen anything more nauseating than a bunch of politicians in an election year? The Democrats began going to black churches on Sunday, and the Republicans are trying to fill everyone’s gas tank for nothing just to get a vote.

The reason we have higher gas prices is because of the environmentalists telling both parties they don’t want to drill offshore or in the ANWR in Alaska. Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in the ANWR in ’96, which is killing us now.

Democrats are to blame because they need their base, and the Republicans are to blame because they are gutless.

It has never been more obvious how badly we need term limits. One term and one term only. It will keep the lobbyists from running and ruining our country.

Wes Hager, Lincoln

Mayor, chief arrogant

It astounds me to think that the mayor and chief of police can be so arrogant as to believe that their emotional thoughts outweigh the collective wisdom of 49 elected state senators and 10 years of debate.

Leave the concealed carry topic alone, as we can decide for ourselves.

Gary Enevoldsen, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Noah wrote on May 10, 2006 6:42 am:
" Hey Larry, have you read the 2nd Amendment? What militia do you belong to? Even more confused? Good, now go read the 2nd amendment. It does NOT guarentee you the right to carry a gun. Know your facts. Your argument is NRA - not really admissable. "

 Scott wrote on May 10, 2006 7:14 am:
" Wes-term limits would have exactly the opposite effect. The lobbyists would be the only people left in Washington who had connections and were able to broker deals. All of your "single term politicians" would be scurrying just to figure out the system. Sorry. I think that is a bad idea. How about letting the democratic process do it's job? If they are corrupt, then vote the bastards out. "

 Eric wrote on May 10, 2006 7:43 am:
" Agree with Betty 100%. It appears to me that the under-25 crowd is disconnected from reality when it comes to anything having to do with finance and money - and gas. Mom and dad supply a sports car at age 15, and the kids indiscriminately drive around waste time for years. I have always thought that this helps create a lifestyle of waste and apathy, because it starts with simple things like wasting gas and money. However, the kids will wake up eventually, when gas is $14/gallon and they're making $6/hour - and mommy and daddy aren't handing over wheelbarrows of cash anymore. "

 phil wrote on May 10, 2006 8:11 am:
" noah should read the 2nd amendment as well... 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. It says NOTHING about BELONGING to a milita. The reason the Japanese didn't invade San Fran after Pearl Harbor is because the commander of that raid KNEW that Americans in general were armed and they would have been THROTTLED if they had gone that far. The arming of the citizens is nessasary if we are ever invaded. "

 Josh wrote on May 10, 2006 9:03 am:
" ANWR is not the solution. Getting into rehab for our addiction is the smart answer. We could have been pushing to get off the oil binge back in the 1970s, but no politicians would do that because they are all in the back pocket of big oil. "

 Gary wrote on May 10, 2006 9:27 am:
" Noah, you cannot pick and choose which portions of the 2nd Amendment you believe in. As phil adeptly pointed out, it states that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "The people" includes all law-abiding citizens of the USA. Your idea of gun-ownership rights is right in-line with such great leaders as Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. A disarmed populace is a controlled populace...the government then controls the people, the people no longer control the government. "

 JoeMerchant24 wrote on May 10, 2006 9:29 am:
" "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" Bear arms is not a misspelling for those who like msucle shirts. Bear arms means just that, the right to own and carry firearms. "

 Dustin wrote on May 10, 2006 9:41 am:
" Wes, look at the bigger picture. Why are lobbiest pushing for drilling in Alaska. Because there is money to be made, for big cornporations that is. Drilling in Alaska will do nothing to lower gas prices, espeically when were looking longterm. Why destroy this fragile environment forever just to put money into CEO's pockets. You might call me a left-wing loser, but this environment is one the world's last untouched environments. It truly is amazing how god made is area so beautiful. Industrializing this area will destroy it forever. Don't buy into what lobbiest are telling the media about maintaining the current environment while drilling. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Better yet why don't we ask a historical question. When was the first gas-powered engine created? In 1876 Germany, by Nikolaus Otto. Now I glad that I am a human being, but it is down right pathetic that mankind has not found (or purposely not found) an alternative to oil. Do the math 2006-1876=130 years. I have heard rumors for years that OPEC has bought out patents for other alternative fuels that are MUCH cheaper, better for the environment, and we have a larger supply of. For example, engines that run off of water. I am sick and tired of OPEC and Exxon-Mobil telling Americans how to live their lives. And Wes, they are telling you how to live your live too. "

 Lindsey wrote on May 10, 2006 10:13 am:
" Goodness, Wes' argument is just so convoluted and strange, I don't know where to begin, but the first thing is that ANWR does not and never will have enough oil to sustain us. There just isn't that much there, and the violence done to the environment in the process of extracting that tiny amount of oil simply isn't worth it. We don't need oil to live. Brazil went off petroleum entirely and uses only ethanol derived from sugarcane. THE ENTIRE COUNTRY! almost 200 million people, the 5th most populous country in the world! It can be done. And you would think people in Nebraska of all places would be pushing for a faster conversion to ethanol-based fuels. Now where the argument comes in that somehow term limits will solve our energy problems, I really don't know.. unless it will guarantee a constantly changing set of public officials who are more likely to be susceptible to the fickle economically based whims of an uneducated public.. ?? "

 Mark M wrote on May 10, 2006 10:14 am:
" Wes, my friend, either you have been listening to a lot of spin on AM Radio, or have just failed to be informed. If you did your homework, you would know that ANWR is capable of producing about 1% of the oil we need daily. What is that, $0.03 at the pump. You can blame Clinton all you want, but the past 5 years Bush and Congress have had all the power they need to start drilling there and have chosen not to for some reason. It's really not a big deal, the oil sitting there is like a savings acct that we can access at any time in the future. Open you mind, maybe you will see that the side you are cheerleading for have their own tremondous faults that you choose to ignore. "

 Anna wrote on May 10, 2006 10:14 am:
" Noah - before you attempt to rely on the "milia" argument, perhaps you had better read the 2nd amendment and look into history a little better. Yes, the amendment reads "militia", however that meant the citizens, not an organized military group. The Militia Act was not passed until 5 months AFTER the 2nd amendment. Therefore, the founding fathers could not have meant an organized military group. There wasn't such a thing at that time. Of course, if you feel that these arguments are only from the NRA, I guess one of the first members of the NRA was George Washington. "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." "

 Lindsay wrote on May 10, 2006 10:39 am:
" Eric - I resent that you seem to know the people of my generation so well. The fact is, yes there are some people that cruise around indiscriminatly, but the majority of people my age do indeed have to WORK. My parents and many other people's parents I know can't afford to pay for their school...we work one or two jobs and take out thousands of dollars in student loans just to survive. Our lives are not fancy, we don't always drive fancy cars, and we PAY for our own gas money. I don't deny the fact that there are people out there my age who have parents that dish it out, but I believe you have a grossly misunderstood belief that just because we're young means that all of us are irresponsible. "

 Jim wrote on May 10, 2006 11:02 am:
" 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.' Does that sentence make any sense separated from the rest of the second ammendment? No it does not. Therefore it means what it means - the well regulated militia should be able to bear arms. Isn't logic annoying? Phil, what fantasy history book are you reading? Sounds like great reading. So say hypotheticallly (and incorretly) that the 2nd amendment does mean every citizen can keep weapons. Can they keep fully automatic machine guns? Can they have grenades? How about shoulder mounted surface to air rocket launchers for sale at Walmart? (with a special discount for irritable people who live near the end of an airport runway) Tanks? Nuclear missles? Chemical weapons? Eh? "

 Chip wrote on May 10, 2006 11:37 am:
" Thank God for people like Larry! I would go one step further. People should be required to carry firearms and there should be no restrictions on how they can be carried. We are much safer when people aren't sure who is likely to fire first. It is much like the cold war. If everyone is packing, everone demonstrates restraint. And why are the rights of felons taken away? Come on. Isn't that just another example of the government trying to take away rights and control our behavior? Give those felons a second chance to show that they can be productive citizens. And why are there age restrictions? Heck, Annie Oakley was a better shot than most others when she was only 15? Guns in schools would sure cut down on the bullying problems resulting in much better student learning. And how can the government restrict they type of guns. Isn't preventing citizens from using automatic weapons against the US constitution? I bet a hunter with an AK47 could thin out overpopulated animal groups more efficiently and keep disease and famine down in the animal world. Come on and get on board for more weapons. What a wonderful world it would be!!! (not) "

 Allen T. wrote on May 10, 2006 12:16 pm:
" Chip: Your rant, while entertaining, is irrelevant. You can't argue against a license allowing CCW by sarcastically calling for new gun laws that are not being considered or suggested by those for guns. So, the proposals that you made (in jest)are unacceptable, but that does not mean that law-abiding citizens should have their rights taken away. Jim and Noah: Your argument concerning the Second Amendement has been brought up before and has been beat down repeatedly by the Supreme Court (not just this one) every time is has been heard. Whether you like it or not, the 2nd Amendment allows every citizen to own firearms, not just members of a militia. "

 Jackson wrote on May 10, 2006 12:52 pm:
" True law-abiding citizens don't need to hide a gun in their pants. Leave that to hip-hop artists and the cast of The Deliverance. "

 Adam wrote on May 10, 2006 1:13 pm:
" For the 2nd Amendment buffs out there, where does it say that the firearms can be concealed. No one is saying that you cannot own guns (currently legal) or even that you cannot carry them (currently legal), we simply don't need concealed weapons. As a former Lincoln police officer, I have no doubt that the 85% number is correct. Every day police officers see otherwise "law-abiding" and "rationale" people commit incredibly irrational acts that will only be exacerbated if everyone has immediate access to a weapon. Why do you think people shoot familty members in the home out of rage, it is because they have immediate access to a weapon when they are acting out of character. "

 Josh wrote on May 10, 2006 1:54 pm:
" "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I do not see that to mean "shall not be regulated" or "shall be concealed". "

 peb wrote on May 10, 2006 2:51 pm:
" A defintion of militia: "The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service." What about the physically fit part? "

 Allen T. wrote on May 10, 2006 3:34 pm:
" peb: Let me try to explain why the definition of militia is not relevant to the topic at hand. The Supreme Court has held that to own a firearm, one has to be a citizen....not a member of the militia. Therefore, one is not required to meet any of the qualifications of a member of a "militia" to own a firearm. The court reasoned that if all citizens where allowed to be armed, then organizing a militia...chosen from the already armed citizens...would be made easier. So, in order to guarantee that a well-regulated militia could be formed...the right of all citizens to bear arms was guaranteed. This is not “truthiness” as so many like to suggest when confronted with an argument they can’t logically or legally refute…it is simply truth. Josh: True...it does not say that concealed weapons required. Where in the Constitution does it say that abortions are allowed? Or the use of contraceptives? It doesn’t, however, courts have inferred those rights from the freedoms of the Constitution. Can legislators regulate rights? Yes, as long as those regulations are Constitutional. Those that are for the CCW laws, however, don’t think that the Legislature should so quickly regulate guns, as it closely touches on the freedom to bear arms. "

 Stan wrote on May 10, 2006 4:46 pm:
" I've read the second amendment many times. Unfortunately, I believe it is poorly written and impossible for those of us alive today to understand exactly what they meant. I do however believe that people shouldn't be allowed to own any kind of gun they want and carry them anywhere they want anymore than the first amendment allows anybody to say anything they want anywhere they want. Keep your guns locked up at home in a gun safe, they don't belong on the streets of our city. "

 luvwknd wrote on May 10, 2006 4:58 pm:
" Nebraska...err...Lincoln property tax is OUTRAGEOUS! Being a Lincoln native I was recently forced to move and the reasons all point to the poor local and state government. 1) Nebraska, moreover Lincoln’s economy sucks, Mayor Seng should be in a retirement center and has NO place in politics! The city council forces good business out of Lincoln, i.e. the local job market in Lincoln and basically Nebraska as a whole totally sucks! I owned a house in Lincoln assessed at 137000.00 and I was paying roughly 2800.00 per year in property tax. I moved to a neighboring state and purchased a house for 255000.00 and now I am paying 1700.00 per year in property tax. The community here is better, the schools here are better; the weather here is better and overall life here is better! The state of Nebraska and the city of Lincoln is currently controlled by farmers who moved to the ‘Big City’; if you want to make your life better, get the hell out of Nebraska! I am sure glad I did! "

 Gary wrote on May 10, 2006 5:17 pm:
" Josh, you make a good point, but you left off the other side of that coin, it does not say that firearm ownership should be regulated, and it does not say that weapons should not be concealed. In all actuality, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the recently passed LB 454, therefore bringing it up to argue for or against concealed carry is moot. We have laws to control gun ownership and use, we have a constitution to guarantee gun ownership. Jim may have negated his point with his opening line...without the latter half of the 2nd amendment, it doesn't make sense. The latter half is what gives the entire 2nd amendment meaning and purpose...which makes it the most important part. As stated before, it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. WE ARE THE PEOPLE!!!! "

 Noah wrote on May 10, 2006 6:25 pm:
" The Supreme Court has ruled militia means National Guard, and a special note to Josh, you've conveniently left out the first part of the 2nd amendment. You must have been reading your NRA material. I invite you to read up on the Supreme Court decision, particularly that concerning the Brady Bill. You'd like it. By the way, fewer guns = fewer gun-related crimes. "

 Nash wrote on May 10, 2006 7:26 pm:
" Adam, the Constitution has no need to list every variation of every activity for that activity to be a right...or even legal. If it did, most of modern day life would be illegal, as it is not to be found in our Constitution (breathing for instance). And while I am surely no "buff", the meaning of these items (also found in our Bill of Rights) seems quite clear to me. ---Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ---Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. --- "

 Gary wrote on May 10, 2006 8:16 pm:
" HA! I love it when anti-gun campaigners can't even recognize and begin to argue with each other. Noah, I think we can all accept the fact that "militia" means formal military establishment. However, you're ignoring the second part (funny, since you seem to be stuck on the first). It's been posted many times, I'm not posting it again. Fewer guns does not equal fewer gun related crimes, as evidenced by the fact that the states in our country with the strongest gun control laws also have the highest crime rates. But hey, why bother with facts when lies are so much easier? "

 Gary wrote on May 10, 2006 8:24 pm:
" BTW Noah, I believe your Supreme Court argument was also a lie. In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that "with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view. The significance of the militia," the Court continued, "was that it was composed of 'civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'" "

 outtahere wrote on May 10, 2006 9:12 pm:
" luvwknd- we're right behind you! Only the totally stupid will stay in this God forsaken city much longer! Seng's legacy will be that she was the one who turned Lincoln into a ghost town. She only cares about those with the big bucks. Pathetic! "

 Josh wrote on May 10, 2006 9:25 pm:
" How funny - I meant my comment to be against the CCW....... "

 loving retirement wrote on May 10, 2006 9:44 pm:
" We have just purchased our dream home to enjoy our retirement in. It is comparable to the home we own in Lincoln. Our property taxes here are well over $3,000. Our new home in MO is going to cost us..... $220. Yes folks, that's PER YEAR. Life is good! "

 Joel wrote on May 11, 2006 7:19 am:
" The meaning of the Second Amendment is not vague, nor is the verbiage misleading. The only problem with the Second Amendment is that it does not contain the message many here want it to...because it doesn't make you FEEL good. If you contort it to be about regulating the militia, and you ingnore the right of the people, then what is it's purpose? And what does the right of the people have to do with the militia? It is no mystery that our forefathers experienced tyranny first-hand and keenly understood the need for the citizens to rule the government rather than the government riding roughshod over the people. Their simple solution: GIVE THE POWER TO THE PEOPLE. And that is exactly what the Second Amendment does, hence the phrase "the right of the PEOPLE" (not the right of the militia or any other twisted concoction). Should the people be allowed to own automatic weapons and rocket launchers? Yes. If that is what it takes to keep this nation free, then absolutely! The Second Amendment is not about regulating crime. It is about arming The People in order to preserve our freedom. The simple fact is that without armed citizens, we would not have become a free nation. Without armed citizens we would not continue to be a free nation. Does the government ride roughshod over us? Not yet. But with all the intentional misinterpretation and watering down of our rights in the name of preserving the delicate FEELINGS of a few people, it may not be much longer. What do you suppose the FEELING will be then? "

 Nick Chorey, Umatilla, Or. wrote on May 13, 2006 6:24 pm:
" Need I remind you that our forefathers would NOT ratify the Constitution unless and until the first 10 amendments were approved.....especially the SECOND AMENDMENT! "

 bill m. wrote on May 14, 2006 9:23 am:
" in responce to cindy h.--- because in nebraska it's not about the people it's all about satisfying the money hungry political B.S. that is what "THE GOOD LIFE" seems to be all about!!! glad to be an ex-nebraskan!!!! "

 vote no on second amendment wrote on May 15, 2006 10:37 am:
" I think a strong argument can be made that the 2nd amendment does not apply to our modern society. Guns were definitely a necessity for Americans living in the late 18th century. They relied heavily on civilian militias to act as a supporting military force, and many Americans relied on hunting in order to survive. Not to mention the founding fathers had just defeated a tyranical governement due to our civilian militias, so obviously they were big supporters of civilians carrying guns. The fact is that guns are not a necessity for American citizens anymore. We have a capable military to defend us (never will our governement ask civilians to partake in millitary battles) and the vast majority of Americans do not rely on hunting as their primary food source. If the founding fathers were alive today and were able observe our modern society, I have a strong feeling that they would want to rewrite the constitution and delete the 2nd amendment. It's just not necessary for Americans to carry guns any more. The only reason gun ownership is still legal is because people LIKE to own guns. If no guns were allowed to be owned by civilians in the U.S. there would be a huge decrease in gun crimes in this country. Sure it would take a few years to get guns out of the hands of criminals, but it could be done over time. Sure there would be illegal gun sales, but buying guns on the black market would be so expensive that no petty thugs could afford one. Only the wealthiest of criminals would be capable of posessing guns, and I don't think that they'd be too concerned with mugging people on the street. My point is that the 2nd amendment is outdated and should be erased from the constitution. Our country would be better off without civilian gun ownership. "

 DKSuddeth wrote on May 15, 2006 4:25 pm:
" Your naivete is cute. You obviously haven't studied history. The founding fathers and authors of the constitution and the bill of rights believed in the right to bear arms because they had a huge mistrust of central government and a standing army. That is exactly what we have now. If the fathers were able to observe our modern society they would be chastising us for being lax on criminals. You don't stop gun crime by removing guns from law abiding citizens. If you removed guns, your crime rate would sky rocket. Look at England and Australia for your examples. The Second Amendment is more important now than ever before. Us 80 million gun owners are the only thing stopping you from becoming an oppressed american. "

Ads by Yahoo!

More Stories In Letters