Concealed carry

Concealed carrying at church

Years ago, my father wrote a letter to the NRA, attempting to explain that there is “no right to self-defense”. His premise was that there is nothing particularly important about your “self” as opposed to anyone else’s “self” (although you might hold yourself in high esteem). Everyone’s “self” is important. With that in mind, why are so many churchgoers hiding weapons when they attend services?

I would propose that those, so armed, intend to use their weapons to neutralize a criminal threat if it would present itself. They are not intending to simply protect themselves, but to protect an entire population against a criminal act, if one occurs. Simon Peter, one of Jesus Christ’s apostles, carried a sword to the garden where Jesus was arrested prior to His crucifixion not for self-defense, but to use against potential criminal acts. And he used it defensively, and was not rebuked nor was he arrested by the Roman guards, although Jesus later allowed the illegal arrest to proceed peaceably (John 18:10).

An alternative to disarmament by infringing on the general bearing of weapons, concealed or open, is to liberalize that ability and to encourage anyone who is able-bodied and willing (the “militia”) to be ready at all times to confront criminal behavior and to neutralize a threat when it appears. The idea of preventing crime by reducing the presence of weapons is not a defensible position in that almost any device, from a sword to a knife, to a fork, to a stick, to bare hands can be used in a criminal act. Preemptive attempts at reducing criminal behavior, although admirable, have not eliminated evil. Punishment of evil or criminal acts may be a deterrent for future acts, but it is primarily an act of justice for a particular crime. Ideally, justice should be exacted rightly, quickly, and appropriately by the police, judges, magistrates, juries, and an armed citizenry.

Keith W. Stampher

Colorado Springs

Most immigrants don’t want welfare

The changes in health care coverage for immigrants by this administration is counterproductive to the health of all U.S. citizens. As the change is more restrictive, fewer will get help until emergency room care is required. This will cost more and cause more U.S. citizens to get sicker as shown by the mumps outbreak at detention centers.

“Policies that curtail the flow of immigration to the U.S. are likely to result in a declining number of such ‘actuarially desireable’ persons, who could worsen the private insurance pool risk” as stated in the article, “Immigrants Pay More in Private Insurance Premiums Than They Receive in Benefits” by Zallman, Woolhandler, Touw, Himmelstein and Finnigan from the “Health Affairs “ Journal, Oct. 2.

The more persons who add to the insurance pool, lower the cost of insurance for nonimmigrants as well as immigrants. Immigrants who pay insurance through taxes and paycheck deductions are actually “public credits.” The term “public credit” might be a more accurate term than using “public charge” for the fact that most undocumented workers pay more into Medicare and private insurance than they receive in health benefits.

The term “public credit” was used by Don McCanne in commenting on the above article. What most want is what our ancestors wanted in coming here, to work hard for a better life. Seeking welfare benefits is not the goal of most persons. They happen to pay more into our health care system than they take out. We are the beneficiaries of this credit.

Mollie Williams

Colorado Springs

Elections are coming up

When British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tried to play a Donald Trump, his Parliament had the guts to deal him a decicive blow. That parliament knows its duties and responsibilities. Honor to Great Britain. When our Trump wants to build his useless wall, he steals 3.6 billion from sorely needed military funding. Gutless Mitch McConnell does not call on his senators to stop this outrageous act. How embarrassing for our country. Elections are coming up. Let’s get rid of these traitors.

Will Klaus

Colorado Springs

Weaponizing of the Bible

In response to negative messages regarding Drew Brees’ video “Take Your Bible to School Day,” Focus on the Family’s president, Jim Daly, asked, “Why do those who feel as though they have been bullied now bully those with whom they disagree?”

Mr. Daly, when you have been forced to survive on the streets because of your parents’ Bible-based beliefs, when you have been compared to pedophiles or practitioners of bestiality, when you have been told you are an abomination in God’s eyes, when you have committed or attempted suicide because of your failure to change your sexual orientation, when you have lost family and friends, when you have been beaten up and harassed, when you have been discriminated against, when you cannot love whom you choose to love, when you cannot live without fear or self-loathing imposed on you by others, when you suffer from PTSD, when you are depressed, when you turn to drugs to numb your pain, when you contact AIDS or an STD because of the life you are forced to live, then you can call yourself bullied. Negative responses on social media pale in comparison to what LGBTQ people experience daily, largely due to the hateful messages put out by religious organizations. Until these organizations take an honest look at themselves, LGBTQ people will continue to suffer abuse because of the weaponizing of the Bible.

Kathleen Eichinger

Colorado Springs

Load comments