Jeanne Brennan’s April 27 Free for All letter accused The Post of imposing its point of view by publishing a particular Danziger cartoon. Yet she did the same thing when she wrote that “[e]veryone knows” that legislators were not influenced by how their gun-
legislation vote would affect their reelection chances.
Well, I’m part of “everyone,” and I believe they were influenced.
I fully acknowledge Brennan’s right to her opinion on the Second Amendment, but I urge her to accept that not “everyone” agrees with her.
Stephen K. Stearns, Charlottesville
Jeanne Brennan could not have had it more wrong.
First, the editors of The Post cannot “impose” a point of view. They present information and ideas in the hope that people develop an intelligent perspective. While I often question the placement of a sports article above the fold on the front page of The Post, I absolutely defend a cartoon founded on the sense of the clear majority of the population.
The Danziger cartoon should have been on the front page — and quite large — the day after the Senate voted to ignore the desperate need for arms control in this country.
Second, anyone who thinks that many of our “duly elected” representatives are not in the pocket of the National Rifle Association (and many other lobbying organizations on many issues) ought to take a closer look at how things work in Congress.
Being a senator or representative is, above all, about money and reelection.
Finally, when will we put a halt to the idea that the Second Amendment is an immutable force that cannot be abridged? Sensible and thoughtful people change their minds all the time in recognition of the facts.
Thomas Jefferson and his pals never contemplated 30-shot magazines, so why do we suggest that they were intent on forever protecting future rights to such tools?
David M. Carr, Washington
I wish I could share Jeanne Brennan’s faith that votes against sensible firearm and ammunition restrictions were prompted solely by the senators’ conviction that those laws would violate the Second Amendment.
I find her view to be a bit too rosy, however.
I fear that we again have observed the actions of self-serving politicians whose primary allegiance is to campaign funding.
I hope that we voters — their employers — will remember that we have the right, and the obligation, to keep those who do the job we pay them to do and fire those who do not.
Bob Wirtz, Baltimore