In her My View column, Viv Taylor states “I don’t understand why we need a civilian version of an M-16” (CHN, Jan. 13). Here is why.

The Second Amendment was written to prevent the subjugation of the people by foreign or domestic powers. The most effective way to prevent that situation is to allow citizens to posses the same small arms used by the police and military.

We are not talking about stealth bombers and nuclear weapons – those weapons can kill a lot of people, but they will never subjugate anyone. The final prosecution of any war, or the subjugation of any people, requires boots on the ground with state of the art small arms. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan for recent history, or Nazi Germany and how the Jewish people were found. The fact is, the founding fathers entrusted the people with ownership of state of the art small arms.

Of course the downside of that right is that you will have people who abuse the right with sometimes horrific results. However, like all of our rights, we tolerate the worst so we have the best (Westboro Baptist and the First Amendment come to mind). Far more people are killed by drunk drivers then madmen with assault rifles, but I don’t hear any calls for banning alcohol. New gun-control measures are simply not necessary and likely illegal or ineffective.

Rob Reece

Chapel Hill

Unfair assumption

Viv Taylor falsely assumes that in America, we “choose to act as if we are at war with one another” and that “many people in my country feel the need to be prepared to kill one another” (CHN, Jan. 13).

It is grossly unfair to assume that law-abiding gun owners are bloodthirsty or violent. No gun owners I know have any malice toward their fellow man. The only time any would consider shooting someone is if that person were trying to harm or kill him or his family.

You do not have to be a crime expert to see that Chicago and D.C., areas with restrictive gun laws, are rampant with criminals. In those cities, the criminals are armed-to-the-teeth while the average citizen cannot defend himself. Likewise, you do not have to be an expert to understand that armed females are much less likely to be raped or killed than their unarmed counterparts.

Ms. Taylor says that “I don’t understand why we need a civilian version of the M-16.” First of all, M-16s and AR-15s are in different classes of weapons. The M-16 is fully automatic, the AR-15 is not. Secondly, the right to bear arms was created so that citizens are able to discourage our government from becoming tyrannical or dictatorial. The first thing a tyrannical government does is to restrict the right to bear arms.

The federal government already restricts citizens from owning military weapons such as grenades, explosive rockets and machine guns. More restrictions would only serve to erode the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment ensures that the freedoms granted in the First Amendment are realized, including the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of press.

Ms. Taylor’s ramblings proved to be of little value. The only reason I responded is because she falsely portrayed lawful gun owners in a bad light. By the way, I hope you enjoy blowing away whole “flocks of clay pigeons,” not “folks of clay pidgins.” The editor should reprimand your proofreader.

G.E. Randall

Hillsborough

Rights are limited

The Supreme Court has issued opinions concerning the First Amendment, limiting freedom of speech and restricting freedom of the press.

A person does not have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Newspapers do not have the right to publish shipping schedules during war since that information might be used by enemies to sink our ships.

If the First Amendment can be proscribed, why is the Second Amendment inviolable? Why can’t sensible limitations be imposed to protect the sanctity of life? Freedoms are not absolute. We don’t have the right to do whatever pleases us. Absolute freedom can lead to anarchy.

By limiting some of our rights, we maximize the rights of all. Unlike criminals who obey laws only to escape punishment, most citizens obey laws that are fair and reasonable. If our laws are just, we suffer no loss of freedom since we restrict our behavior voluntarily.

Why then is the argument made that there can be no restrictions on the right to bear arms when that right results in the murder of children? Why can’t sensible limits be placed on individual gun ownership when it benefits all of society? Where are the legislators who are representing the United States?

John Canzanella

Chapel Hill

Untrue and nasty

Penny Rich’s comment that Del Snow’s “interests are in conflict with the town and the citizens of Chapel Hill” (CHN, Jan. 13) was, in my opinion, inappropriate, untrue and nasty.

From the record of the last few years, I conclude that Ms. Snow is more concerned about the future of Chapel Hill and its citizens than is Ms. Rich.

Arthur L. Finn

Chapel Hill

Yield – it’s the law

I like to walk with my young sons to Weaver Street Market on Saturdays. However, I always have to pray for their safety since we have to cross Greensboro Street. Too often drivers turn right into us on the crosswalk, even though the pedestrian signal shows “Go.”

Unfortunately, the marked crosswalks on North Greensboro Street are not any safer – often five or more cars zip by the sign “Yield to Pedestrians - It’s the Law.” Once I got honked at while pushing a stroller over the crosswalk – obviously too slow for the approaching driver (the speed limit is 20 mph!).

Last fall, the State launched the “Watch for Me” campaign to improve pedestrian safety and draw awareness to the state Law that requires yielding to pedestrians at intersections and crosswalks. I have not noticed any improvement in Carrboro. Does really one of the many people walking in Carrboro on Saturday mornings need to get hurt first? Why do Carrboro police seem unable or unwilling to better protect pedestrians right in front of the police station? When we first moved here we were amazed by the Southern way of driving - courtesy and safety first. Please help to keep it that way and don’t let the reckless drivers take over our roads.

Ralf Schmid

Carrboro

Save racquetball

I am very disappointed that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro YMCA want to destroy the Y racquetball courts. To eliminate courts that are estimated to have a cost to build of over a quarter of a million dollars and replace them with more of the same, i.e. exercise equipment, seems more than foolish.

The Y represents a community and does not or should not discriminate against one group of members to the advantage of another group. We all pay dues. A survey was done that indicated what I will call unrealistic results. How surveys are constructed can distort results significantly. For instance, I doubt if any Y member was asked if they wanted the racquetball courts eliminated. The courts are used by racquetball and handball players. They are used for tennis practice, for volleyball practice and children’s after school programs and individual stretching.

If additional space is needed why not expand the Y? Why try to compete for new members by making the Y the same as other commercial gyms with similar equipment? What other space alternatives are underutilized that can be used temporarily for additional general type exercise equipment.

Y members and citizens of Chapel Hill, please support our ad hoc committee to retain the unique Y courts. We have over 200 member signatures requesting the Y board and management not to eliminate the courts. Why risk losing member families that specifically belong to play racquetball. Eliminating an asset that is worth over a quarter of a million dollars surely will have unintended consequences .

John Greifenberger

Chapel Hill