For the editor:
Re “Gunfire Tears Into a Parade Near Chicago” (front page, July 5):
Well, America happened in our little town. You know our town, don’t you? It is to him that people send thoughts and prayers. This is the town where people say, “We never thought this could happen here. It’s the safe city with wonderful cops and a sense of community.
It’s the suburban town where everyone takes their kids in red wagons or on tricycles with banners to watch the 4th of July parade. This is the town where people are randomly shot by someone with a gun.
We are now in mourning. This is now the town where experts, who have never been here, will slam swords and shout to score points by using dead people as vouchers. My city? It’s your city. It will happen again. Does that sound like freedom to you?
Kevin Tibbles
Highland Park, Ill.
The writer is a former NBC reporter.
For the editor:
This Independence Day, we hung two of the six American flags that normally line our driveway each year at half mast. We did this to honor those six lives sacrificed at Highland Park.
Their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been usurped by the intentional misrepresentation of the Second Amendment by a minority of Americans. May all who profess to be pro-life search their souls to examine their position on gun laws and what it really means to be pro-life.
Marcella Woodworth
Venice, Florida.
For the editor:
As professors. Joseph Blocher and Darrell AH Miller point out in “Is a Musket Similar to an AR-15?” (Essay by an opinion guest, July 2), the recent politicized decision of the Supreme Court only sows confusion.
Good.
Civilized states that protect their citizens with strong anti-gun regulations should simply ignore the court and toughen up those regulations. This will lead to trial after trial, which could last for years or even decades. All the while, their citizens will be protected from the gun-crazed. And hopefully there will be a more sensible Supreme Court then.
Let’s not forget the fact that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is a willful misreading. The amendment has two parts. The first talks about the need for strong state militias — a concern when the amendment was passed — and the second part, which depends on the first, talks about the right of individuals to own and bear arms. If the founders hadn’t wanted the second part to depend on the first, they wouldn’t have needed to include the first at all.
Michael Spielman
Wellfleet, Mass.
For the editor:
To have to each of us lose a loved one before the gun lobby shut down?
Robert Davidson
New York
For the editor:
Re “I’m a New York City Liberal, and I Want a Gun,” by Laura E. Adkins (opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, June 30):
Ms. Adkins argues that she needs a handgun to protect herself from a stalking ex-partner. However, there are less lethal options to protect yourself, such as stun guns, home security systems, or taking self-defense classes.
Ms Adkins says: “And as soon as I can buy it and transport it legally without too much hassle, I can’t wait to sleep soundly.” I hope she never has to shoot and kill someone. If she does, she may never sleep soundly again.
Paul R. Brown
SilverSpring, Maryland.
The difficult task of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
For the editor:
Regarding “Jackson takes oath, becoming first black woman on Supreme Court” (news article, July 1):
How sad that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is taking her place on the Supreme Court when she has reached such a low point. She certainly deserves much better.
It will no doubt be very difficult for her to sit in a court where the majority is quite willing to undo, with such problematic reasoning, so long as she has spent her life supporting it.
Not only do they not seem to care about precedents, rights and the pain and even deaths their decisions will cause, but they also seem indifferent to the consistency of their justifications and the embarrassment of citing as an expert of rights, in the Dobbs decision, someone who believed in witches and argued that they should be tried and executed.
Maybe they have power and just don’t care what people, nationally and internationally, think of them. But I do, and I find their actions shameful and disgusting.
Linda Bell
Decatur, Ga.
The writer is professor emeritus of philosophy and director of the Women’s Studies Institute at Georgia State University.
Dignity of election workers
For the editor:
Regarding “Violent threats continue against election workers despite federal efforts” (news article, June 30):
Election workers are the backbone of our democracy. From county to county, they are our neighbors and ensure that the voices of this country are heard. But as detailed in your article, local and state election officials are increasingly working under the threat of violence and experiencing harassment and abuse. The apparent goal, even long before the fall midterms, is to get them to throw in the towel on their work or give in to the pressure in some other way.
None of this is good for our democracy. It is also an attack on the dignity of these workers, who fulfill a civic function for little or no remuneration. These are now dangerous jobs.
Task forces, like the Federal Election Threats Task Force, are welcome, but their work needs to be highly visible and transparent to ensure reporting mechanisms are known, deterrence is advanced and consequences are demonstrated.
State and local governments must work in tandem with these efforts and better support these civic-minded champions more broadly. Local media should prioritize reporting these stories. And neighbors should treat their neighbors in a way that respects the dignity – the inherent worth and value – of each other.
Jeffrey Siminoff
San Francisco
The author is senior vice president, dignity at work, at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.
nytimes Gt