Blog
C1bca5902c
President Obama wipes away tears as he speaks at the White House on Tuesday about his executive actions that are intended to reduce gun violence. (Carolyn Kaster, The Associated
Press)" width="495" height="358" srcset="http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/files/2016/01/president-obama-gun-laws1-270x195.jpg 270w, http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/files/2016/01/president-obama-gun-laws1.jpg 495w" sizes="(max-width: 495px) 100vw, 495px" />

President Obama wipes away tears as he speaks at the White House on Tuesday about his executive actions that are intended to reduce gun violence. (Carolyn Kaster, The Associated Press)

Re: “‘It gets me mad’ – Obama acts alone on gun control,” Jan. 6 news story.

It’s amazing to me how wildly the right flails about when President Obama uses an executive order — in this case to affect changes in federal gun laws. First off, the changes are quite modest. Polling shows that a majority of Americans support them. Second, Obama is not acting like a “king” as a recent letter-writer suggested. His use of executive orders is lower than that of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. You might also recall an executive order issued by Abraham Lincoln: the Emancipation Proclamation.

Brad Gray, Denver

This letter was published in the Jan. 10 edition.


I am utterly amazed that anyone objects to stricter background checks for gun ownership. I’ve worked in the airline cargo business for over 30 years and every single person who currently works for a company doing business at any airport in the country goes through a 10-year background check. Individuals must be able to prove where they’ve lived, their work history, name changes (etc., etc.) for the past 10 years. All of this for a $14-an-hour job! Those who do not pass even one of the checks are restricted from working at the airport in secured areas controlled by any of the departments listed. These policies and procedures have been in place since 9/11.

There is something seriously wrong with society’s thought process when it’s safer to get on a plane than it is to go to school or a movie or to your local grocery store.

Larry Ellingson, Edgewater

This letter was published in the Jan. 10 edition.


I share President Obama’s anger at the many shooting deaths that have occurred over the years — not only the mass shootings which are a few, but the thousands of shootings, intentional and accidental, that occur in the country every year.

But what angers me the most is the insensitivity and callousness of people like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who opposes gun control. In contrast, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who supports Obama’s plan but has backed gun owners in the past, is trying to find a middle ground. He listens to the people who are most affected by gun violence.

The Second Amendment begins with the words “A well-regulated militia” and ends with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Aren’t lawmakers sworn to defend and upheld the Constitution and its Bill of Rights when they take office?

Jackie C. Anderson, Centennial

This letter was published in the Jan. 10 edition.


Re: “Licensing and training for all gun owners” and “The problem with ‘reasonable’ gun restrictions,” Jan. 3 point-counterpoint columns by Steve Lipsher and Pete Lister.

One of the first things I noticed when reading Steve Lipsher’s opinion (“Yes: Train, license people who want guns”) was that, once again, those opposing guns feel they have to resort to name-calling to elicit an emotional, rather than reasoned, response to their words. In his second sentence he refers to gun rights supporters as “gun-huggers.” He also regurgitates age-old arguments without substantiating their source. One anti-gun argument falls flat, as it assumes that for a gun to stop a crime a gun battle must ensue. Not so. There have been studies that indicate quite the opposite. These studies estimate that guns are used to stop crimes on the order of thousands of times a day — most of the time without the gun being fired. Far more times than the emotionally charged “carnage” numbers implied by Lipsher.

Douglas Hawkins, Arvada

This letter was published in the Jan. 10 edition.


Steve Lipsher suggests interpreting the Second Amendment as a top-down rule, limiting gun ownership to those approved by a command authority. In fact, the Second Amendment is a bottom-up right, ensuring individuals may keep and bear arms in their communities no matter who resides in the White House. Lipsher stated a fact — violent crime is actually decreasing — but may not understand why. Thanks to the concealed-carry revolution, potential victims can now fight back.

Frederick Clarke, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Jan. 10 edition.


Steve Lipsher is spot on when he writes that people who want to own guns should be trained and licensed. Hunting is America’s most regulated and safest outdoor sport and these people have already completed a gun-safety course and must adhere to a raft of regulations too numerous to mention here. If we allowed the people who regulate hunting to write our gun laws, America would be a much safer place.

Roy Legg, Highlands Ranch

This letter was published in the Jan. 10 edition.


Is our nation to become pistol-packing people with a gun in every adult hand or holster? Other than the police, have we read of anyone’s life being saved by someone carrying a concealed weapon?

Did civilian gun owners stop all the mass shootings in this country?

The main action of a gun is to destroy or kill, be it a target in a shooting range, an animal during hunting season, or, sadly, too many times, a human being.

Our federal government needs to establish laws that prevent guns from being in the wrong hands so we can become a nation free from fear of a gun ending our lives.

Margaret Anne Spindler, Westminster

This letter was published in the Jan. 10 edition.


Readers should not conclude from Pete Lister (“No: Look at the causes of shootings”) that all trained and experienced military gun owners agree with his reasons against actions to reduce gun violence. First, he refers to “anti-gunners” vs. those who want to reduce gun violence. He then refers to the false threat of gun “confiscation.” Law-abiding gun owners are guaranteed that right, and no government entity can un-constitutionally seize those weapons. The people and elected officials will never vote to change that. “That some argue the Second Amendment is no longer necessary” does not represent the overwhelming opinion of Americans.

Lister is right that we should work to keep guns out of the hands of violent extremists and those with mental/emotional issues that could lead to deadly violence. Keeping guns from those on the “no-fly list” is one reasonable step.

Dick Sugg, Golden

This letter was published in the Jan. 10 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.