Del Norte Triplicate Readers

Aim is to make country safer, not take rights

I watched the Feb. 26 supervisors meeting where our Board chose to pass a resolution supporting and upholding the Second Amendment. I am unclear what this resolution accomplished because no one has taken away your Second Amendment rights nor will anyone take them away. It seemed redundant to me to even bring up a resolution like this.

The folks who spoke at the meeting, except for the first gentleman and Supervisor Martha McClure, are missing the point of what the government is trying to do with the new gun control laws. It is not trying to take away your Second Amendment rights; it is trying to make this country safer and possibly prevent more horrific mass killings.

Mrs. McClure's example of the banning of tommy guns was excellent. These guns were being used by the mafia to kill citizens instead of using them to kill rodents, which was their original intent when they were given to farmers after the war. Thus, when they were repurposed to kill citizens, they were banned by the federal government. Who could be against banning the use of these guns in our civilized society?

That is what our government is attempting to do: Remove the dangerous, unnecessary weapons from society and keep them out of the hands of unbalanced individuals who should not have access to firearms of any kind.

Another individual at the meeting brought up drunk driving and how successful the campaign to stop drunk driving has been. He said one individual changed the laws for this heinous crime. Now look how many lives have been saved!

Maybe, by having universal background checks or changing the availability of rifles only necessary during war, we could save lives, too. The purpose of such actions is not to take away your Second Amendment rights, but to protect the right of all citizens to remain unharmed in public places. That is the goal here.

The government does not want to take away your firearms; it wants to make this country safer for everyone, and I totally support that. I am embarrassed that this county felt the need to pass this resolution.

Thank you, Mrs. McClure, for being the only sensible supervisor on this matter.

Diana Clark, Crescent City

Enjoyed '9 to 5' by LRT at sneak preview show

I went to the sneak preview of the Lighthouse Repertory Theatre play, "9 to 5," Thursday night, and enjoyed it immensely.

The actors, dancers, and orchestra were all great, and the stage crew did everything right.

We laughed, booed, and watched the singing and dancing, and had a very good time. Good Job LRT.

Ellen Dalbec, Crescent City

Constitution can be changed to protect kids

Gun rights advocates would be well advised to realize that the Constitution can and has been changed. Originally the document countenanced slavery and denied the vote to women. Those provisions were struck because the American people demanded it.

The vast majority of Americans respect the Second Amendment, but we do not want to see our children slaughtered in their schools or anyone slaughtered in our malls and theaters. We will not abide these people who want to own rocket launchers and mega-magazines. If the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution as they do, we will change it.

I don't agree with Triplicate editor Richard Wiens very often, but on this issue he has demonstrated discernment and the courage to stand up to political bullies.

Felice Pace, Klamath

Where is indignation at reinstating suspect?

Regarding the Feb. 28 article, "Still a defendant, official reinstated," where is the indignation? It's not enough that theft has occurred, but to add insult, the defendant in the case is a "leader" in the Probation Department.

Remember Tim Goodman, our past county chief executive officer? Or how about San Diego's ex-mayor diverting $2 million?

And what is the punishment other than essentially just "giving it back"? Am I crazy or is there a double-standard applied to public employees?

Why, heck! Even on a jury summons they can opt out by checking the box concerning "malfeasance in office." I just wish they had our backs as much as they have each other's. It's a cancer!

Jim Snow, Crescent City

Poor officiating cost son's team a win

I would like to write this letter in regards to the Jaycees Tournament officials who reffed the game of Redwood vs. Mendocino.

The officials in that game were some of the worstofficials that I have ever seen. It was blatantly clear that Redwood was a far better team and was winning that game. The officials of that game let Mendocino start playing rugby instead of basketball and would not call a foul, while on the other side of the court, Redwood would get fouls called for clearly playing nothing but good defense.

My son plays for the Redwood Raiders and for his eighth-grade tournament lost a game because the officials were calling a one-sided game. The calls were so bad that with eight seconds left in the game the Redwood coach was on the court jumping up and down calling for a time out and was blatantly ignored by the officials.

Needless to say, Mendocino stole the ball on what should have been a reaching foul or a rugby hit and the ball went out of bounds. Mendocino passed the ball in and once again the officials blew the whistle and called traveling and two seconds later the buzzer went off. Instead of getting the ball out of bounds for Redwood with two seconds left on the clock, I watched the officials say, "no, forget it," and that's the game.

This kind of one-sided officiating is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. The team that should win shouldn't be determined by the officials, but by the team that plays harder and with better play on the court. The officials should never determine the outcome of a game and should be disciplined for doing so.

I, as well as other parents in the stands, were and are outraged at the officials' decision to determine who won that game instead of calling a fair game and letting the better team win.

Levi Thomas, Crescent City

McClure said nothing Icould understand

At the Feb. 26 Board of Supervisors meeting, I was extremely disappointed with Supervisor Martha McClure. The supervisors were debating support of a resolution to support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

McClure spoke for 10 minutes and said nothing, at least nothing I could understand. She questioned case law supporting the Second Amendment as if she was an attorney.

Are you an attorney, Ms. McClure?

In summing up her nonsense, she stated she was going to vote against the resolution introduced by SupervisorGitlin, then said she was going to abstain.

Abstain? Supervisors are paid to vote. Why is she abstaining?

Martha McClure, you acted like a coward Tuesday.

Tim Weiland, Crescent City