Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Parents, kids should repay fire damage bill

Re: Lacoochee playground fire

What could be sadder than this? This is another example of where parents do not know where their children are, or what they are doing.

If the children are minors, the parents should be held responsible partially for some of the costs to replace what was damaged. Said children should then be made to work in the community until the rest of the debt is paid off, even if it takes years. That way, they won't have so much time on their hands to perform heinous acts like this. Too harsh? I'm thinking no.

Arson, no matter what form it takes, is a serious offense. The children and the parents will then know exactly what effort it takes to build things like playgrounds and community centers. Should we feel sorry that the perpetrators might miss their childhood years of playing baseball and going to the beach because they would have to pay their debt to society? Absolutely not. A slap on the wrist at this time in their lives will leave them believing they can get away with anything. If these lessons are not taught now in the formative years, who knows what will happen as they reach adulthood.

Parents should pay, children should work

Those boys' families should be held responsible for the damage. Let their parents pay to replace the burned playground equipment.

Make the boys help in cleaning up the mess. A little manual labor won't hurt them.

New law on deadly force provides common sense

Re: Catering to NRA's bidding creates absurd laws , Oct. 5 letter.

I would like to thank the Pasco residents who attended the Friends of the NRA dinner that I hosted Oct. 1. We raised slightly more than $31,000, which will fund gun-safety programs for children. Some of the groups that will be funded are the Second Amendment Club, ROTC, 4-H Clubs, and the Boy Scouts of America.

Now I would like to address some of Arthur Hayhoe's comments that Ann and I supported Zephyrhills employees being able to carry their firearms into people's homes. This was never said. Ann and I fought the proposed Zephyrhills ordinance banning employees from bringing their guns onto all Zephyrhills property. This would have meant employees could not even leave them in their cars while they were at work. As originally proposed, I don't think it even limited the ordinance to the working hours of the employee or excluded city streets.

Taking cheap shots at Sens. Victor Crist and Mike Fasano and Rep. Ken Littlefield for passing the Castle Doctrine law doesn't make sense. The purpose of this law was to eliminate the duty of victims to retreat from an attacker when they are in fear for their lives or of great bodily harm. Prior to the law, the only place a victim could return deadly force with deadly force without first trying to get away was in his own home. Why would anyone in his right mind object to this law? This bill had bipartisan support and passed by an overwhelming margin. State attorneys throughout Florida supported the bill. That may be due to the fact that firearms are used 2.3-million times a year by law-abiding citizens to save their lives or property. These studies are published in John Lott Jr.'s book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws .

My guess is that letter writer Arthur Hayhoe would even object to judges being allowed to have a loaded gun under their robes while court is in session. Imagine a violent criminal breaking loose and attacking a judge in court. According to Hayhoe's theory, he would want the judge to retreat even though his life is in danger. It's nice to know our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution.

[Last modified October 11, 2005, 01:58:15]