Letters to the editor
Surprised by Burr office response
I just called the D.C. office of Senator Richard Burr, who is opposed to universal background checks, to ask what his reasons are.
The woman who answered the call tried to answer in platitudes, but when I pressed her further she said we don't need universal background checks because we already have them, including at gun shows.
When I pointed out that this was wrong, and asked whether Sen. Burr was opposed to background checks because he was misinformed, she admitted that she herself probably wasn't that well informed on the issue - even though she said parents of victims of gun violence have come in the office to visit.
James J. O’Hara
Milbank twisted Rand Paul’s words
Dana Milbank is an unthinking tool of the left. In his column about Rand Paul’s visit to Howard University, he uses Paul’s criticism of the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional to mean he is not a defender of civil rights.
Dana, they are two different points, two different ideas, a distinction WITH a difference. We can all agree about a desired destination while disagreeing vehemently about the best way to get there.
And using the same neurally challenged logic, he did it again. He writes that Rachel Maddow had asked Paul “about private businesses that refuse to serve black customers.” Paul clearly said that he didn’t want to “associate with those people;” but, he wants to protect free speech as provided by the First Amendment, “in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior.” We may not at all like what people say and do, but we have to tolerate it if it’s protected by the First Amendment.
Paul’s answer defended a principle, not discrimination, certainly not his.
Then Milbank gloatingly boasts that the Howard students were “not fooled” by Paul’s positions. Well, yes they were, and they fooled themselves because they obviously didn’t get an education that taught them how to reason and think, the same inadequate and parlous education that Milbank must have received.