Readers Write: Gun-rights advocates have it wrong; Obama's 'red line' blurred on chemical weapons in Syria

Letters to the Editor for the June 10, 2013 weekly print magazine:

The interpretation of the Second Amendment by gun-rights advocates as disallowing any regulation of guns fails to understand human rights. By supporting gun ownership as an unrestricted right, they allow gun violence and public mayhem to exist.

Lost in the heartfelt hand-wringing and deliberation over the conflict in Syria is the fact that with every passing day more innocents die on America's watch.

By , Monitor reader , Monitor reader

Gun-rights advocates have it wrong

Regarding the May 6 D.C. Decoder, "How the gun fight will go on": America seems to be beholden to the National Rifle Association's position on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. We are living in a different world from the nation's founders. It is time to remind ourselves that law in America may be amended when a significant number of people seek a change.

The interpretation of the Second Amendment by gun-rights advocates as disallowing any regulation of guns fails to understand human rights. By supporting gun ownership as an unrestricted right, they allow gun violence and public mayhem to exist. The Second Amendment must be interpreted – or amended – to ensure the protection of all.

Roger Neetz

Recommended: Five guidelines for US role in Syria

Vero Beach, Fla.

Obama's 'red line' on chemical weapons

I presume that the Monitor's View of May 13, "Sarin gas in Syria," was written before President Obama wiped clean his "red line" against the use of gas in Syria. Unfortunately, world leaders are not taking "stiff action" against the use of gas that the editorial says they are contemplating. Instead, they continue to study the situation and ask more questions, knowing they will get multiple conflicting answers.

Predictably, the Monitor and others who want "to protect the innocent" agonize over any reaction that might cost more innocent lives. Lost in this heartfelt hand-wringing is that with every passing day more innocents die. Since Mr. Obama sternly admonished President Bashar al-Assad that the use of chemical weapons would be a "game changer," thousands more have lost their lives.

Sending Secretary of State John Kerry to talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin is a fool's errand. Russia and Iran are arming Mr. Assad while the putative leader of the free world confuses those who might support the anti-Assad militants with his meaningless rhetoric. Obama does "[know] the principle at stake in chemical warfare," as the editorial states, but he dithers. His lack of leadership on Syria will be seen historically as America's shame. Have we forgotten Rwanda so soon?

Roland Martin

Carmel, Calif.

Recommended: Five guidelines for US role in Syria
Share this story:
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...