Breaking Tampa Bay, Florida and national news and weather from Tampa Bay Online and The Tampa Tribune | TBO.com
Wednesday, Apr 23, 2014
Letters To The Editor

Letters to the editor: Pseudo logic

Published:

Pseudo logic

In regard to “Poster boy” (Your Views, Dec. 2) by Arthur C. Hayhoe, I must say that the author uses the established “pseudo logic” of gun control advocates very well. But let’s look closely and unemotionally at the veracity of his statements.

First, the George Zimmerman trial was not about “stand your ground.” At no time during the trial did the defense use that term. Second, Zimmerman’s current issue has nothing to do with his concealed weapon permit. It is my understanding that the incident involved a shotgun. Third, if just 10 percent of the concealed weapon holders in Florida were “unstable,” that would amount to 100,000 individuals. Is it not “logical” that there would be headlines in the paper at least once a week about some “unstable” concealed weapon holder blowing people away?

As far as pulling a permit when someone is “charged” with a felony, what happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” And tracking the “behavior” of concealed weapon holders or “reviewing” whether a person is suitable to carry a concealed weapon would be monitored and decided by whom? Finally, if an “unstable” person wants to use a gun for whatever purpose, do you think that not having a permit will stop them?

The type of pseudo logic used by Hayhoe and a lot of like thinkers — placing blame on “unstable” concealed weapon holders — hides their real intent. That is to take guns from the ordinary citizen. I know it’s a cliche, but “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Jerrold Cheesbro

Sun City Center

A right not to retreat

Regarding “Poster boy:” It seems Arthur Hayhoe is at it again. We do not live in a police state. We are innocent unless a guilty verdict is rendered. George Zimmerman has to wear an electronic device and had to surrender his firearms. His concealed weapon permit is irrelevant until a verdict is rendered. This is why we have a Constitution.

As far as “stand your ground,” we have the right not to retreat. If we would have to retreat, this would give the thugs and bullies carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. Since I have served this country during the Vietnam War, I feel I should not have to retreat if there is no other choice.

Again, I say Hayhoe should focus his crusade on the criminals and where drugs are involved and leave the law-abiding citizen alone, as well as concealed carry.

Stephen Burchett

Seffner

Facts, conclusions askew

Many people do not understand the “stand your ground” law, including Arthur Hayhoe. First of all, there is the basic right to self-defense, which George Zimmerman used in his trial. He has never used the “stand your ground” law.

Hayhoe is also confused with the laws regarding concealed carry licenses, and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Zimmerman will lose his Second Amendment rights to possess and/or own any firearm as well as his carry license if he is convicted of a felony. But if he is only convicted of a misdemeanor violence charge, he will lose his carry license, under Florida law. His Second Amendment rights might be affected by federal law in the case of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The judge has suspended all of his rights to possess guns or ammunition as a condition of his bail and pending the results of his trial. His carry license will be meaningless under this temporary court order.

Florida law provides a long list of reasons to deny a person a concealed carry license, including misdemeanor crimes of violence, a record of drug or alcohol abuse, all felonies and mental instability. Hayhoe’s facts are as askew as his conclusions.

Lee Hanson

Hudson

A bigger plan

Kudos to The Tampa Tribune for standing up for religious liberty (“An affront to religious freedom and individual rights” (Our Views, Dec. 1). As our society becomes more and more secular, religion continues to come under attack on many fronts. Let’s expose the Obamacare HHS mandate for what it is: a full attack on religion and the Catholic Church in particular. I believe this is part of a bigger plan, one where the state must “put the church in its place” because it is the last bastion of opposition against a godless agenda.

You would think that President Obama and his administration would be playing with fire by alienating a large majority of Americans who hold their faith dear. It’s no surprise, though, since this administration looks at so much of the nation as backwoods yahoos who “cling to guns and religion.” Unfortunately, a growing number of people, especially the liberal elite, have bought into the notion that religion is merely a one-hour-a week activity that must stay within the walls of a church. Obama has tried to reinterpret the First Amendment in the past by referring to “freedom of worship.” Don’t find that anywhere in the Constitution.

The Catholic Church has done more good in the world than any other organization in history, especially when it comes to providing health care for all. For the government to force Catholic organizations and other people of faith to violate their deeply held convictions is unconscionable. Let’s remember that the church is not trying to withhold contraception or abortion-inducing drugs to anyone. People still have every right to use those if they see fit. But why should religious organizations or people be forced to pay for these things, which would make them complicit in something they view as evil?

Even godless secularists should remember one thing: A government that can force people of faith to violate their consciences can also force you to do whatever they decree. And the time will come when they will decree that you do something against your conscience. May God have mercy on us all.

Gus Lloyd

Odessa

Comments