Ban semi-automatic weapons from use
The horrific killing in Texas so close on the heels of Las Vegas proves, again, that somebody with an assault rifle can quickly kill dozens of people before anyone has time to react.
No amount of vigilance is going to stop it so long as semi-automatic rifles are legal. Our current gun laws do not allow for ownership of automatic weapons because they can kill so many so quickly.
It's the same reasons no one questions the illegality of rocket-propelled grenades. So why do we allow people to carry semi-automatic weapons when they have been used time and again to kill large numbers of people?
The Preamble to the Constitution states that the very purpose of our founding document is to, among other things, "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare" of the people. Any amendment to the Constitution - any law - that undermines or violates these principles is in its very essence unconstitutional.
Think of the lives that could have been saved had semi-automatics not been available to killers. It's possible these killers would not have attempted their acts had they been unable to get these guns. It's time to outlaw them.
Tom May, Ooltewah
***
Arming citizens will cut murders
Recently, a nut killed almost 30 as he strolled up and down the aisles of a church. The nut would have kept it up until he killed the entire congregation were it not for a neighbor who heard the shots and ran over barefoot with his own automatic rifle. If any member of the church had a gun, the nut could have been stopped his first trip down the aisle.
Nuts, criminals and terrorists can strike anywhere at any time. The only practical solution is to have armed citizens everywhere.
Why not recruit highly trained vet volunteers, and pay them for having their gun with them at all times? Arm the poor with confiscated guns, as inner cities need protection the most. Local police often have many. Off-duty policemen and veterans would not need further training.
Dr. Tom Herzog
***
Keep stormwater ordinance level
The proposal for changing the stormwater ordinance requirement to manage volume control after a heavy rainfall should not be approved by the City Council.
In light of climate change impacts from storms with increased flooding, why would we weaken a rule for South Chickamauga Creek that holds extra runoff water on land? That extra water adds pollutants and sediment to the creek, exacerbating the amount of water raging through in a storm and adding to existing degradation.
The South Chickamauga Creek is a treasure for our city. Sadly, it is on the state threatened and impaired streams list due to sedimentation and habitat alteration.
It houses two endangered species. Despite the Homebuilders Association pleas for relief from so-called onerous regulation and rising costs for home building, the city is first responsible under the Clean Water Act and state requirements to protect waters of the state. The current ordinance accomplishes that. It was designed to move us to desirable green infrastructure requiring stronger control of runoff.
Before ignoring this responsibility, the City Council should send these proposals back to the drawing board to determine if there are better alternatives. Homebuilders should play their part in protecting our environment.
Lucy Taylor