Posted: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:00 pm
I generally lean toward liberal positions, especially as regards social issues. But in the ongoing debate over Nebraska’s proposed concealed carry law, I find myself torn, perhaps because I’m dealing with it from a painful perspective that forces me to reconsider my own liberal outlook.
My 24-year-old daughter, Rachel, was murdered on May 28 of last year. The man who climbed in through a bedroom window and killed her and two other young people (and seriously wounded a fourth) had a criminal record; he should not have had — and indeed was technically not allowed to have — a weapon. But he did have one, and he used it to take from me the thing I loved most in the world.
If any of the victims had been carrying a weapon, the outcome of that tragic confrontation would almost certainly have been better; it could hardly have been any worse. Perhaps my daughter would still be alive. At least she would have had a chance. But she had no chance; no one there was armed except for the killer, who shot each victim (one of them three times) and then simply walked away.
Frankly, I do not really wish to carry (or even own) a weapon, and I would have no problem living in a society in which I was not allowed to own one. Just as long as the government could guarantee that no one else will own one, either.
Rod Scher, Lincoln
‘Right to Carry’ laws work
Recently the Journal Star printed an article regarding the proposed law allowing qualified citizens to carry concealed handguns. This subject, also called “Right to Carry” (RTC), was discussed with local officials who are against such a law. The judgment by many who do not believe in RTC use subjective comments without any basis to characterize concealed handguns in a negative light.
Thirty-eight states have passed concealed handgun laws, and I personally have not heard of any negative reaction or results of their gun laws.
Your newspaper depicted a person with a handgun on their hip (LJS, March 11). In fact, this illustration does not show a concealed handgun, but does show the Journal Star’s liberal bias against the handgun proposal.
Many Nebraska residents travel to Florida and Arizona for the winter. Both of these states allow concealed handguns. I have not heard any negative experience of our folks while visiting either state.
Chuck Zellers, Lincoln
Hagel’s vote is revealing
Sen. Chuck Hagel’s party-line vote last week in the Senate Intelligence Committee to not investigate the Bush administration’s warrantless electronic eavesdropping program should erase any doubt about his “independent” or “maverick” status within the Republican Party. He is neither.
Nebraskans — and Americans — expect members of the House and Senate to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Sen. Hagel failed that test last week and revealed his true role as just another collaborator in the Bush administration’s continued assault on the Constitution and on American civil liberties.
You can skip the Sunday morning talk shows for awhile, Senator; your vote tells us all we need to know.
Mike McNeil, Lincoln
Admiration for Hagel
Thomas E. Fuller’s March 8 letter calling Sen. Ben Nelson a DWEEB (a Democrat With Everything Except Brains) was a pleasant surprise, for most of the letters to the editor critical of our representatives in Washington are reserved for Sen. Chuck Hagel — which, I guess, says something about Journal Star readers.
Fuller is right. Nelson is certainly not “independent,” as he calls himself, but neither would I call him a DWEEB. He is a cynical politician who knows what sells in this state.
Sen. Chuck Hagel I would call independent. I admire and respect him.
Ralph Grajeda, Lincoln