Letters

Letters to the editor

Highlands Today
Published: January 10, 2013

Shirking personal responsibility

If you chose to live 20 feet below sea level, were continually warned you were in a hurricane zone and in imminent danger of a massive flood but you tuned out the warnings with a dismissive "I can't leave my home," then when the disaster comes, you blame the government for not doing … what? Warning you?

If your family is in danger, you move.

My parents moved several times because of better job opportunities. That is what this country was founded upon — opportunity, not guarantees.

Not only a better job, but annihilation would seem to be a motivator to move, if you ask me. The people of New Orleans chose not to move and then the survivors demanded compensation to rebuild their houses in the same flood zone post-Katrina. Duh?

Now comes Sandy and demands for more billions for these unfortunate "victims." FEMA apparently isn't enough, now Congress is responsible for doling out billions upon billions of dollars with little or no regard to where the money is going.

Anyone questioning where the billions are going is heartless and cruel. The House questioned the latest demand for $60 billion in Hurricane Sandy "victim" relief because, it seems, most "victims" didn't bother with flood insurance.

Then, to add insult to injury, several Congressmen added earmarks when no one was looking, including money for fisheries in Alaska, money for new vehicles for certain government agencies, etc. When the House balked and wanted a closer look, the Republican majority were called cruel and heartless by the Democrats.

This country no longer requires responsibility for anything. My bad decisions are not my fault, period. "Taxpayers are responsible and owe me no matter what" is the mantra of the liberal left. No accountability, no responsibility, just give me money and leave me alone to do it all over again. You owe me.

Charles Reynolds

Sebring

Guns needed

One of the first things Hitler and the Nazi Party did was take away guns. This was done in Russia and Cuba, too, when the Communists took over.

This has always been the order of business for socialist regimes such as the one we now have in Washington. General Tojo from Japan said after bombing Pearl Harbor there was no way they would attack the American mainland as our armed citizens would chop them to pieces. And we still would, unless Obama gets his way.

I read some of the letters from people against guns and I just wonder what these people are thinking.

If we give up our guns, we are giving the government total control of our country and they have done a lousy job of it so far.

The crooks will still have guns and they are the ones to worry about, along with the mentally damaged. Totalitarian governments always remove the guns, then control our speech and shut down churches.

The guns are not what do damage; it is the people using them. We need better mental health control and care. Some of these people are harmless, but some have built up fears and emotions that one day will foment and bubble up and they will explode.

The controlling of sane peoples' guns is an intrusion on our liberties. Not everyone is attacking other people with guns, only the mentally ill. We need a way to test people for mental stability and give help to the unfortunate ones that cannot cope, not penalize the majority that are honest, sane, hard-working Americans.

If guns were not available, the mentally ill would use knives, bats, rocks or whatever to lash out. Jails are full of people that are mentally ill, not really criminals, and need help. Many more people are killed in auto accidents than by guns every year, but no one is trying to ban the auto, are they?

Richard Burbick

Sebring