That's certainly how it appears to me as well. The original letter writer seems sincere but not very well informed, and that's a very dangerous combination! The rebuttal letters provided facts whilst he only provided opinion. We owe the authors of those well written letters our gratitude. Hopefully, they informed and educated others who might have been influenced by the original missive. Thanks for posting that one MP.
I think it would have been better if there was a little more diversity in the responses. Each letter seemed to be a repeat of the previous one. But it was good to see responses in fact.
I realize that...but the editor should have made better choices (assuming the paper received more responses).
My letter to the Editor. Editor: The uninformed comments by Mr. Markham about Militias have been addressed in previous Letters. Beyond that he, and you, should know that the NRA was not a part of the 'Parker' suit. In fact as much as the NRA tried to make themselves a part of it they were denied by the Courts. As evidenced here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8169, and here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/907055/posts. In point of fact the private individual who funded, organized and, is co-counsel on the case is one Robert A. Levy ( http://www.cato.org/people/levy.html ). While Levy is a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute they were not involved either. An interview with Levy about 'Parker' may be found here: http://www.motherjones.com/interview/20 ... _levy.html. Mr. Markham, as with most who would attempt to deny the Constitution and any right to self defense, seems not overly concerned with facts. John Wiley Marietta, GA