Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama appear at the White House Rose… (Michael Reynolds, European…)
Re "Gun check effort fails in Senate," April 18
Are you kidding me? The Republicans in the Senate are so concerned that the mentally ill and criminals may not have access to guns that they prevented expanded background checks from coming up for a vote?
The same day that three people were killed in Boston, perhaps 30 or more were slain with guns. Thousands of Americans' lives can be saved by preventing guns from being purchased by people with mental illnesses and criminal records and by strengthening rules against straw purchases.
That the current Senate can't pass even the most common-sense regulations is unforgivable. Those who voted against this should be ashamed of themselves.
Liberals, including The Times' editorial board, are trotting out the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December as a reason why we need the additional background checks that were voted down in the Senate.
If this bill, in its entirety, had been in effect before Newtown, it would have done absolutely nothing to stop the shootings.
It would not stop the gang violence rampant in our nation because gangs don't buy weapons legally.
If The Times is really concerned about gun violence, how about writing about the "Fast and Furious" episode?
I'm always mystified when commentators refer to the "courage" needed to pass gun control laws in the Senate.
What is the worst thing that can happen to a member of Congress who votes in favor of background checks, causing the National Rife Assn. to pump money into a campaign to defeat him? He would lose his seat and then get a better-paying job in the private sector.
If someone told me that if I took an unpopular position, I could get fired but afterward would get a higher-paying job, I would have plenty of courage.
Letters: Foie gras facts
Letters: The language of Justice Scalia
Letters: Community college execs aren't getting a raise