The last line of this editorial burned me up so badly I was finally spurred to send an e-mail in defiance. 
Here is my response (kind of long...):
Mr. Mercier;
I wish to take offense at the closing statement in your recent piece, "Under the Gun":
"While everyone understands there may well be no law that could have prevented the sniper murders, recent events do offer an opportunity for a vigorous, rational debate on gun laws. We should hope that such a debate will not be dominated by paranoid fanatics and the elected officials who pander to them."
Is this to say that anyone who holds a contrary opinion to yours is a "paranoid fanatic" and that politicians who choose to listen to these constituents are "pandering"?
I am a well educated (Ivy League Master's Degree) 30-something with a wife and two children. I live in a typical suburb, drive a fuel-efficient economy car, and attend church weekly giving a significant portion of my income to that church. I am also a member of the NRA, own firearms, and train with them regularly. I believe it is my responsibility as a citizen to be prepared to resist tyranny in whatever form it may take and to be
equiped for and capable of defending my family if it becomes necessary.
Am I a "paranoid fanatic"? And if I am, does that mean that the first ammendment does not apply to me?Are politicians who listen to concerned citizens such as myself pandering to us? Or, perhaps, are politicians who suggest ineffective new laws to
provide a false sense of security to a nervous public pandering to them?
You make mention of airport security. This is a perfect example of politicos pandering to a nervous public by enacting new legislation that is little more than feel-good window dressing. None of the "airport security" measures taken today would have prevented 9/11, and I guarantee that none of the new gun laws
currently under discussion if enacted will prevent future gun crimes.
Here is my response (kind of long...):Mr. Mercier;
I wish to take offense at the closing statement in your recent piece, "Under the Gun":
"While everyone understands there may well be no law that could have prevented the sniper murders, recent events do offer an opportunity for a vigorous, rational debate on gun laws. We should hope that such a debate will not be dominated by paranoid fanatics and the elected officials who pander to them."
Is this to say that anyone who holds a contrary opinion to yours is a "paranoid fanatic" and that politicians who choose to listen to these constituents are "pandering"?
I am a well educated (Ivy League Master's Degree) 30-something with a wife and two children. I live in a typical suburb, drive a fuel-efficient economy car, and attend church weekly giving a significant portion of my income to that church. I am also a member of the NRA, own firearms, and train with them regularly. I believe it is my responsibility as a citizen to be prepared to resist tyranny in whatever form it may take and to be
equiped for and capable of defending my family if it becomes necessary.
Am I a "paranoid fanatic"? And if I am, does that mean that the first ammendment does not apply to me?Are politicians who listen to concerned citizens such as myself pandering to us? Or, perhaps, are politicians who suggest ineffective new laws to
provide a false sense of security to a nervous public pandering to them?
You make mention of airport security. This is a perfect example of politicos pandering to a nervous public by enacting new legislation that is little more than feel-good window dressing. None of the "airport security" measures taken today would have prevented 9/11, and I guarantee that none of the new gun laws
currently under discussion if enacted will prevent future gun crimes.