Today's letters: Readers comment on Russ Sloan, firearm restrictions and debates

Thank you, Sloan

I was saddened to see the last column written by Mr. Sloan. I really looked forward each Sunday to his calm and insightful commentary and his knowledge of our government and its operation. You could count on his column being truthful and containing commonsense ideas that are missing in most of the left-wing political rants that are being presented to the public by the majority of today's media.

Thank you, Sloan. May God bless you.

Dave Hocevar, Yalaha

Firearm restrictions

I am a strong believer in enacting additional restrictions on certain firearms, primarily those commonly referred to as assault weapons.

The right of the government to regulate firearms is well-established. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Many of those opposed to new firearm regulations cite a fear of the federal government and the prospect of tyranny imposed on a disarmed citizenry. Contrary to this erroneous belief, there is absolutely no provision in the U.S. Constitution that allows for armed rebellion. To think that a citizen armed with an AR-15 would prevail against a federal military force armed with tanks, long-range missiles, etc., is beyond ludicrous.

The part of the Second Amendment that is most often ignored are the words “well-regulated.” Their placement at the very beginning of the amendment indicates their primary importance and are self-explanatory.

The majority of Americans favor common-sense gun safety restrictions that may not totally alleviate the appalling rate of gun violence in this country, but will minimize it.

Our country must learn to love its children as much as it loves its guns. Where is the outrage from the pro-life faction against the slaughter of our children? After all, they have a heartbeat, too.

Chris Fox, Clermont

Crist should debate

It appears that Charlie Crist has decided he’s enough of a frontrunner in the gubernatorial primary that he doesn't need to debate his Democratic opponents.

Who does Crist think watches debates? Voters. He can reach more of them in a televised debate than he can at any backyard barbecue.

Crist needs all of the exposure he can get. Competitive primaries can help focus voters’ attention on candidates they’d otherwise ignore and boost the popularity of the eventual victor. Right now, Crist is losing badly to Gov. DeSantis. Although I generally don't listen to polls, DeSantis is significantly ahead of Crist. This should make anyone who is concerned with DeSantis’ autocratic tendencies concerned about the poll numbers.

If Crist dodges debates now, he gives DeSantis license to skip them as well in the fall when the Democratic nominee will be desperate for free airtime against the juggernaut campaign of the heavily funded, heavy favorite DeSantis.

Participating in debates is simply the right thing to do. It’s part of an American tradition that goes back to the days of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

Personally, I think the groups hosting debates should put out chairs and name plates for every invited candidate. If one doesn’t attend, let the empty chair remind the audience who was a no-show.

Crist debating his opponents is the right thing to do for the electorate, his party and his own campaign.

Irene Dubman, Lady Lake

Write to us

Send a letter to the editor (up to 250 words) to letters@dailycommercial.com. Letters must include the writer's full name and city of residence. Guest columns of up to 750 words are also accepted on a limited basis. More information on submitting letters and columns can be found at dailycommercial.com/opinion.

This article originally appeared on Daily Commercial: June 19 letters: Readers comment on Russ Sloan, firearms and debates