Right approach to guns
Dallas Titus’s March 6 Pulse letter, “Gun rights threatened,” is hilarious to me. As a Democrat, I do not want the Second Amendment gone. We do not want to take gun away. All we want is better background checks and the AK-15 off the street and out of hands of common people. It belongs with our servicemen.
When working one Saturday, I waited on a gal who came in and told me she just bought a gun at a gun show in Council Bluffs. She laughed as she got it in five minutes and said she had a background check. We need better medical records, where they lock up there guns, who has a key to it, a license renewal every two years, how many guns and what they own, and a test given at that time.
I grew up on a farm and have nephews who love hurting and have a safe where the guns go and are locked. I want them to be able to hunt.
What we need are better background checks and more police guarding school doors, with security checks like the airport.
It is time to think of human life for a change with mental health, better laws and our police force working more places. I do not want to live next to a neighbor who thinks he is a policeman. Stupid.
Connie McMillan, Omaha
Help for pets
As a pet owner and animal lover, I just want to make sure that there is awareness of a group called Homeward Bound of the Heartland that rescues strays and helps pet owners with issues that may cause them to lose their pets due to illness that they can’t afford to treat or other extenuating circumstances.
They provide a very valuable service to all of us who love our pets, or who love animals in general. Please keep them in your consideration when it comes time to make a charitable contribution or if you have pet supplies you no longer need or can use.
Their contact information is readily available through Google, or you can locate them on Facebook.
Lisa Todd, Papillion
Private schools’ importance
In reference to Michael Williams’ Feb. 25 opinion essay opposing the private school proposal: He complains this money is being taken away from the rightful owners of our money, ie., the state, or so they think this is their money. Having choices for where your kids attend school should be up to the parents. I think the “state” should let the money walk with the kids to whichever school they choose to attend.
The public schools are complaining that classes are overcrowded. Well, this would alleviate some of this overcrowding and allow teachers to possibly do one-on-one training with students.
Robert Moore, Omaha
A recent opinion in The Public Pulse by “renowned economist” Larry L Kennedy needs a little clarification. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public libraries, police and aid to farmers are not socialism. They are, in fact, government services paid for with our tax dollars and payroll taxes.
Larry does what many liberals do and spin services provided by governments and paid for by taxes as socialism; they are not.
Merriam-Webster defines socialism as follows:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
To date our governments (federal, state, local) do not own or control the means of production or distribution of goods. We have private property ownership.
Perhaps Larry would be happier with a true “socialist” government. I’ll keep my current one!
Jeff Sena, Bellevue
Yes to Sanders’ climate policies
Thanks for your March 8 article comparing the appeal of President Trump to the appeal of Sen. Bernie Sanders. The article had many thoughtful insights, but it barely mentioned one matter where they differ greatly, climate change. Sanders’ climate policy is especially important here in the Midwest.
His proposals, called the Green New Deal, would quickly move our country to clean energy while employing large numbers of people to build the infrastructure. This would bring jobs to Nebraska and Iowa, where we would see more wind and solar.
But for Midwesterners, perhaps the best part of his proposals would be changes in agriculture. Bernie’s Green New Deal would pay farmers to employ healthy soils practices, which also has the effect of sequestering carbon. Some people call this carbon farming.
The benefits are many. Farmers would need less fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides, so food would be safer and healthier while farmers’ costs would go down. Soils would be less fragile and would hold up better to wind, drought and flooding. As farmers are able to buy less fertilizer and other chemicals, they will become more independent of corporate control and make more money. That extra money will benefit their communities. We would all get healthier food.
Of course the U.S. cannot solve the climate crisis alone. Sanders would also rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and bring nations together to fight our most urgent enemies, like the coronavirus and climate change.
His climate policy would come closer than any proposal we have seen yet to addressing our climate crisis in the short time we have left.
Frances Mendenhall, Omaha