Talk won’t lead to honesty, compromise

To the editor:
Liberals seem to have an uncontrollable urge to conclude that conservatives say things that they didn’t or infer that they meant something they did not mean.
Thus Leonard Pitts claims that all Republicans use “code words” for their racist comments that only other racists or race baiters like him can understand. Likewise, in a recent letter a liberal claimed that I was embarrassed by Pitts when I actually said that the paper should be embarrassed.
Last week the liberal media and The CR were “inferring” that Dr. Ben Carson somehow insulted the victims of the Umpqua College massacre and thus was not presidential. The shooter asked if people were Christians and killed those who said they were. A liberal asked Carson a gotcha question designed to make him admit that he would deny his faith or claim he would become a martyr for it. In either case, the press would have ridiculed his answer. Instead, he gave a very reasonable answer that he would yell for everyone to join him rushing the shooter.
Contrary to the liberal “assumptions” he was not insensitive because he did not imply anything about what the victims should have done. And he was not, as column in The CR said, “putting responsibility on potential victims in general to work harder not to get shot.” And the fact that someone got shot rushing the gunman is a strawman that is irrelevant to Carson’s answer. Personally, I have a better solution. I won’t go to states that don’t honor my concealed carry permit, so I would have just shot the man.
I consider it to be unpresidential to be pitching anti-gun schemes that would have made no difference before the victim’s bodies are even cold. I consider it to be unpresidential for Obama and Hillary to say that they will unconstitutionally rewrite our nation’s gun laws in violation of article 1 and 2 of the constitution, the second amendment and fifth amendment due process.
Kathryne Rubright says that “talking about prevention shortly after a shooting isn’t wrong.” I am 68 years old and I can testify that we have been talking about the gun banners’ endless stream of “prevention” scams for over 50 years and it is always the same. They come up with a nice sounding title that they can only sell with lies or they push good sounding legislation that contains a poison pill.
An example would be Biden, the Democrats’ former plan B, trying to ban the Glock as an all-plastic terrorist handgun that was only good for hijacking airplanes. It is now the most popular law enforcement handgun in the country. An example of the other was Obama’s and Schumer’s universal background check bill that would have even had gun owner support. They just had to throw in federal gun owner registration. Calls ran 90 percent against, it was defeated in a Democrat controlled Senate and now gun owners equate background check bills with registration.
I doubt if talking about gun ban’s while the bodies are still warm will have any effect on gun ban politicians’ unwillingness to be honest or to compromise on any of their usual unreasonable lies and demands.
Stephen Erwin
Portland