Rip it down mentality
To the editor: As I watch the demolition of St. Ignatius Church in Oregon, I remember the stories about the sacrifices made by its members in the late 1920s to build that church. Fire destroyed the previous churches in 1915 and again in 1926.
I remember my grandfather, Herbert Gladieux, telling me about the early history of St. Ignatius and the building of the church, which is now being hauled away in dump trucks. He told me how the community of St. Ignatius was determined to “build that church to last” as they didn’t want any more destruction to come. His father was involved in building all three churches as he was known for his Old World carpentry skills.
The new St. Ignatius became Ohio’s version of a beautiful and historic California Mission Style church with its tile roof, bell tower and Spanish influence.
My grandfather’s stories come to mind – stories of him and other parishioners, later in the century, going door-to-door begging parish and community members for financial help to pay off debt because the Great Depression and World War II had gotten in the way.
I can’t help but wonder if those who gave so much would have done so had they known their treasured church would be destroyed within a relatively brief period after their major sacrifices? And how would they have responded knowing it was destroyed not by fire, but a wrecking ball?
As I look around the cemetery, I see the graves of those who sacrificed so much. I think of all the immigrants who are laid to rest there. Their roots were in Europe where churches were built forever and not for a few years.
I am certain the church to be built will be very nice and functional, as it should be for the millions of dollars it will cost. God will continue to reign in spite of what building we try to contain Him. But as I look to the future, I cannot help but wonder how long that newly-constructed church will remain with our “just rip it down” mentality.
Levy deserves support
To the editor: I plan to vote for the two-mill Oregon school renewal levy.
Oregon-Jerusalem residents, along with students attending our schools, deserve to be proud of the physical condition of our school buildings. The levy was purposely designed about 35 years ago to be evaluated and reconsidered on a five-year basis.
This plan was to ensure the funds were being utilized for the levy’s intended purpose. Money collected from this levy cannot be used for salaries and benefits. Inspection and seeing the physical improvements implemented these past five years indicate the funds have been effectively and properly used.
Former Elementary Principal
Common sense needed
To the editor: I would like to respond to Joann Schiavone’s letter (NRA government? April 15) and fill her in on a few things that she does not know. Millions of honest American men and women support the NRA to keep our freedom – thank God for that.
Do you think that moron would go in to shoot up a school if he thought someone would shoot back? The bad guys think twice if they think someone will shoot back. Many years back, they talked about arming teachers in the big cities.
I am not sure how many state sheriff associations have written to President Obama to use common sense on his gun control. You should be glad that most American people know how to use firearms. In the Second World War, many of the British did not know how to shoot – we had to teach them.
Guns offer protection
To the editor: I wonder if letter-writer Joann Schiavone (NRA government? April 15) realizes that what protects her right to rant in this country is our Second Amendment.
Without the Second Amendment, you wouldn’t have the First Amendment. I also wonder if Schiavone realizes that the NRA is made up of American citizens who believe in our right to protect ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I wonder if Schiavone realizes that guns protect our courthouses and government buildings. You cannot get into these buildings without going through metal detectors or by pat-down and showing proper identification in some instances. Why do we protect those government buildings but allow schools where our children are every day to be unprotected in “gun-free zones.’
I wonder if Schiavone realizes that, in many cases, these crimes are committed by people with mental issues. Does she wonder why Chicago, with some of the most stickiest gun laws in our country, has the highest murder rate?
No existing law would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary, yet Barack Obama brings the parents of the murdered children to Washington, D.C. at taxpayer expense to lobby Congress on gun control. Does Schiavone have a problem with our tax dollars paying for these grieving parents to be used as props by this President?
If Schiavone knows how to prevent crime, maybe she should start with drunk drivers. We have laws against drinking and driving. Please explain to the relatives of the family killed by the wrong-way driver in Oregon a few years back why those laws did not prevent that drunk driver from getting on the expressway going the wrong way.
Lastly, prohibition used to be the law of our land. Crime was at an all-time high because of the prohibition of alcohol. I ask Schiavone, did the government banning alcohol stop people from drinking?
To the editor: John Doe applies for a gun permit. The sheriff will have a deputy to check him out. The deputy may go to anyone that knows Mr. Doe, where he lives, what he does, where he works.
Say he is a nut. The deputy goes back and lays it on the sheriff to decide. Doe has at least a long delay. I’d like that also if a person wants to buy 5,000 rounds of ammo.
If a local sheriff missed something, we would then have someone to hold responsible. If we wind up with anything short of one person to absorb our problems, we will have nothing.
Leonard H. LaFountaine
To the editor: I found it very appropriate in the April 15 issue of The Press to find the guest editorial “Four Police Officers Fortunate to Be Alive” next to the letter entitled “NRA government?”
Guns being used positively and negatively. One gun being used by a criminal, others being used by police. The point being made is that guns can not do anything by themselves. They must be used by a person.
I have never seen a gun stalking anyone. It must be used by a person.
Why is it so difficult to understand this fact? This brings us to realize that those persons who misuse guns must be dealt with. Brains, not emotions, must be used to solve our problems – all of our problems. Facts and reality have their part to play in solutions – not opinions based on emotions.
M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) use their brains to deal with auto accidents. They don't chase after automobiles as the crux of the problem. It is the nut behind the wheel that causes the problem.
People with evil intent are waging atrocities on us, not the instruments they use. Until we learn to deal with people with evil intent (sick people), we will never decrease atrocities.
Sorry, guns and the NRA are not to blame.
The Rev. Milton C. Mann, FAPC, retired
Do the research
To the editor: This is in response to Joann Schiavone's letter about the NRA. Schiavone chooses to attack an organization for daring to express a view contrary to her own rather than discussing the merits of the viewpoint. She's quick to express disdain for the NRA, yet expresses complete confidence in a Joe Biden-led government task force.
Maybe Schiavone should consider doing research and gathering facts instead of blindly opposing or supporting a viewpoint.
Perhaps she should consider a recent survey by PoliceOne.com of more than 15,000 law enforcement officers and their opinions on gun violence. After all, these are the people who regularly deal with the issue up close and personal. They should be heard. When asked if a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime, 96 percent of law enforcement officers surveyed said no.
When asked if a ban on certain types of assault weapons would reduce violent crime, Seventy-one percent said no and another 21 percent said that it would make violent crime worse.
Over 85 percent of respondents believe the White House's proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on their safety.
When asked about the best way to prevent large scale public shootings, less than 1 percent believe that restrictions on assault weapons and high capacity magazines would be effective. A plurality of 29 percent believe more permissive conceal carry policies for civilians would help.
More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who volunteer to train and carry a firearm on the job with appropriate background check credentials.
It is clear that if we rely on one-liners about guns killing people and jump to conclusions like Schiavone and the task force, in the opinions of law enforcement we stand to make the situation worse, not better.
I have great respect for law enforcement and all that they do. I think their opinions should be given strong consideration instead of ignored because it is inconvenient to a political viewpoint..