While I don’t agree with all laws/government mandates, I don't think wielding a gun to create my militia to protect my homeland is the right answer [“Diversity Is Perfection,” Feb. 6 Xpress].
People/guns have evolved, and so should our thinking. The Second Amendment has not caught up with the times. I don't need a bazooka to vote (exaggeration, calm down), I don't need a tank (yes, you can buy one online) to ask my neighbor to move a trash can. …
I appreciate the freedom of speech in America and the right to vote, but I am unaware of anyone who has needed a gun to vote, though requiring voter ID seems pretty much like someone trying to take away the right to vote from minorities, the poor, and the elderly. My 92-year-old grandmother doesn’t have a driver's license and rarely gets out of the house. She made it a point to get out and vote this last election because she felt it was important. If the other seniors who volunteered to work the voting booth did not allow her to vote because she did not have proper ID, should she go on a shooting rampage with semi-automatic weapons to defend her right? That seems silly. In fact when I last voted there was a “no guns” sign at the library. Ironic, eh?
Back to your/my point. Stuff is happening. The APD evidence room is dirty, but it doesn’t deserve to be in the same article as the shooting in Newtown, Conn., or Aurora, Colo. We have to pick battles; let's go big or go home.
Sadly I feel we are, "shattering injustices" the wrong way. What injustices were "being shattered" and what “free-speech zone” was not being acknowledged in Connecticut that warranted that event?
We can all appreciate diversity, but diversity that leads to mass shooting in elementary schools we can do without.
— Mark Strazzer