Regarding the June 8 news story, “Kansans and Missourians stick with Trump,” by now our voters should realize they are facing a decision in November that looks and feels very much like the one all retirees confront, namely, whether to rollover their 401(k) funds with a broker that boasts of his prowess as a stock picker, or alternately, to conservatively invest the dollars in an S&P 500 Index Fund, providing a return approximating the market — but at substantially less risk and exposure.
Guess which one is the analogy for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump?
I am against “gun control.” No, not the concept of gun regulation or gun safety, but of gun “control.”
That word has many spurious connotations, not the least of which is that of elimination, as in “pest control.” Those who are against any sane regulation are quick to assert that the government is trying to take your guns.
To routinely use the term “control” in the process of espousing some kind of safety measures is to abdicate half of your argument going into it.
Gerald Vandenberg, Ph.D.
The preamble of the United States Constitution reads: “We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Does the author of the Constitution write to “keep and bear arms” override a citizen’s right to simply stay alive in our country, in order to enjoy some of the “blessings of liberty” and all other rights afforded by the articles and amendments of the Constitution?
Suffice it to say that our founders, who were then familiar with single-shot muskets of revolutionary times, likely did not envision military-style assault weapons with multiple-shot, quick-change magazines capable of killing 20 children or 49 men and women in a matter of minutes.
Nor, I suspect, could they have imagined the level of gun-related one-on-one deaths suffered in our country, every day of the year. If they had had the benefit of total divinely inspired foresight, I suspect they would have changed or added verbiage to protect against today’s insanity.
Ted Steinmeyer Jr.
Danedri Herbert in her June 8 column, “Irate over the school mess? Toss the justices responsible,” suggested that the solution to the school funding dilemma in Kansas was to throw out the five justices who are up for retention this election cycle. Ms. Herbert seems to know a little bit about the process by which Supreme Court justices are selected in Kansas but not a lot about the consequences of her suggestions.
The governor does choose from a list of acceptable jurists selected not by “a secret committee” of lawyers but by the members of the Kansas Bar who practice their craft before judges throughout the state. They know who is Supreme Court material and who isn’t.
One of the five up for approval this fall was appointed by Sam Brownback and four by his predecessors. I suggest that if we throw out the current crop, there will be five new ones appointed by Brownback.
Honestly, do we want that? Brownback handpicked the power in the Legislature, which gave him a place to practice his grand experiment, and look where that has gotten us.
Please, retain all five of the justices. Don’t give Brownback more leverage to ruin our state.
Keith W. Ashcraft, M.D.
Please cancel whatever agreement you have with Danedri Herbert for her monthly column in the 913 section of The Star. She adds nothing to intelligent political discourse in Johnson County or Kansas.
Her commentary is sophomoric and shallow. Surely if you want to get someone who is a far right conservative to provide “balance” to the political discussion, there is someone more qualified and articulate to do so. If I were a Republican (I am an unaffiliated voter) I would be embarrassed by Ms. Herbert’s columns.
Ban assault weapons
A political commercial appeared while I watched news coverage about the tragedy in Orlando, Fla. It was from a gubernatorial candidate in Missouri showing him firing a fancy assault rifle.
The sound was an eerie reminder of what I envisioned happened in the Orlando nightclub. I could not believe someone would continue to air this ad when so many people were killed by an automatic weapon.
When I was growing up we called them “machine guns.” No one except the military had them, and we did not have any mass shootings.
If you want to shoot an automatic weapon you can rent one at a shooting range. It is expensive because they use a lot of pricey ammunition.
They are not good for personal protection unless you are expecting a group of zombies.
I’m afraid the June 14 article about Prairiefire, “Overland Park’s Prairiefire mixing success and struggle,” really missed the primary obstacle for Prairiefire — parking.
There is very little easy access parking, and patrons must contend with an awkward parking lot or tipping for valet service. As for the theater’s lackluster performance, I’d say that the ridiculous ticket price is probably a prime problem.
To send letters
Visit the Letters website at kansascity.com/letters to submit your letter to the editor for 913. The website form, with helpful reminders on required information replaces an email address for online submissions. You may also mail letters of up to 300 words to 913 Letters, The Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO, 64108. Online letters are preferred.