Absolutism argument

Second Amendment

Regarding “Editorial: As gun deaths surge, it’s time to say ‘enough’ to Second Amendment absolutism,” (April 18): As a home-owning citizen with two grown children and a deceased 17-yearold daughter taken by gun violence, I am very concerned for our safety from gun violence. I have come to believe that the best tactic to address the elevated level of gun violence is to create a constitutional amendment to allow “stop-and-frisk.”

I honestly can’t imagine living in a community with even higher levels of gun violence than Houston. I don’t understand peace-loving citizens who won’t embrace trying to reduce the levels of gun violence through stopand-frisk, as put into place by then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who afterward was castigated for his policy for being discriminatory. Frankly, I now see minorities preferring the risk of gun violence over stop-and-frisk; I think their willingness is probably tainted by their personal fear of being discriminated against when that policy is invoked.

However, I lean toward supporting stop-and-frisk because I think the personal safety and quality of life of Americans would be improved if gun owners were expected to act within the laws regarding gun ownership and gun handling. The current environment of gun violence in this country creates threats to personal safety equivalent to what was found in the Wild West 150 years ago. I really don’t understand how a civilized society tolerates this.

I say, add some statistical smarts to the stop-and-frisk process to level the playing field by targeting all people equally and we all would have a real workable solution to tame gun violence. My vote is to try “something” to hopefully reduce the illegal holding of a gun by fellow citizens. I don’t really see any realistic options popping up anywhere else.

Bob Aubrecht, Houston

Regarding “Opinion: Ted Cruz is right. Biden’s ghost gun ban is a distraction from his crime problem.,” (April 20): People who argue for “absolutism” with regard to the Second Amendment should read Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller decision:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Jon Parker, Houston

Mayor Turner’s plan

Regarding “Houston council OKs security camera mandate for bars, convenience stores over ACLU objections,” (April 20): All politics is local as well as national. What can the mayor and city council do representing a city saturated with lethal weapons and almost daily carnage?

They must first admit that a sizable number of our population consists of too many who have been exposed to decades of underemployment, consistently poor educational opportunities and decades of racially segregated housing with all attendant deprivations.

It is fair to ask, given the mayor’s appointed special commission to provide solutions to gun violence: Have we closed the gun show loophole? Who is in charge of the promised gun buyback project and what is their record? And finally has the Houston Police Department deployed the promised threat assessment teams in the known areas of the city where gun violence is prominent and where even children are killing children?

Until we know the answers we can expect nothing but performative gestures for the news cycles that inflame rather than inform.

David Jones, Houston

It’s clear the 15 members of the City Council who voted for this have no concept of running a business — and especially so during the times of tight labor and supply issues we are currently experiencing. Forcing hundreds of businesses to simultaneously order and install the same type of product in just 90 days will likely drive prices higher while limiting their options for quality products as supplies dwindle.

While the city mandated the installation of 1080p cameras, that’s yesterday’s technology trying to solve today’s crimes. At a facility I help manage, we are in the process of updating our cameras from older 1080p cameras to 4K cameras as we have had incidents where even the 1080p cameras can’t capture quality images that are useful. They can tell you what happened, but not the “who” nearly as well. The cameras we need are backordered until May/June.

This is a stupid, knee-jerk reaction to the liberal, lax-on-crime attitude that has been infecting major cities across the U.S.

Having cameras may be a good idea in the long run, but businesses need more time to acquire and install quality equipment that will actually add value. Oh, and since this camera requirement is part of Mayor Turner’s One Safe Houston agenda that will funnel $44 million in federal relief funds (aka our tax dollars) to the city, will the mayor and City Council be giving all these business some of these funds to install these new cameras, or is this just a new regulatory burden (aka tax) forced upon a business? Tim Graney, Katy