To the Editor:

It appears the long arm of the liberal press has made it to your publication. Scott McLeod’s anti-gun rhetoric (The Smoky Mountain News, April 15, www.smokymountainnews.com/opinion/item/15568) concerning “super permits” (your words) is laughable at best. You failed to mention that these so called super permits would only be issued to highly qualified personnel such as retired police officers and retired military personal, with extensive training backgrounds. These people would only play a first responder role and in no manner would they have the authority of police officers.

 All too often, innocent people die at the hands of crazed shooters, simply because no one is present with a firearm to prevent the carnage. This compounds the tragedy. You can never protect the first person of these mass shootings as they fall victim to the element of surprise. Sadly, because of draconian gun laws that forbid carrying weapons on campus or in hospitals and many other places, other people present have no recourse but to cower and wait for their bullet to arrive.

By your own admission, you state you have never spoken with Sen. Tarte, sponsor of Senate Bill 708, which would allow the advanced concealed carry permit (nothing super here). I simply looked the bill up and got the same information you did online. So it doesn’t matter that other reporters have spoken with the senator, which you used as a source.

 To use the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, (formerly known as National Council to Control Handguns, then became known as Handgun Control Inc.), is not a great way to make your case, sir. The stats you published provided by that organization do not hold water, as no source is mentioned where these stats came from. Typical liberal speak! Just throw a bunch of numbers out there and if half the people reading the article believe it, mission accomplished! The Brady Bunch makes no reference as to where they acquired this information you printed. Why? They made it up!

You were quick to throw in bad police shootings, rare as they are, but like the national media, make no mention of the good shootings by police every day. Your biggest piece of misinformation was most police agencies support stricter gun laws. Fact is, most police agencies condone concealed carry laws. That’s why 48 states have concealed carry laws on the books; a huge majority.

Last but not least, it seems to me you see our most sacred document, The Constitution, as standing in the way of your agenda, which is gun control, under the guise of rational and reasoned debate. It is that very document that allows you to print your opinion and allows you to live in a democracy we all enjoy. Also, you stated the Second Amendment complicates issues concerning guns. Nothing can be further from the truth. It’s not complicated at all. It’s quite clear: “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Obviously law, and the interpretation there of, is not your strong suit.

 In closing, please understand we are at war (remember the War on Terror)? Terrorists’ main targets are civilians, and in countries where guns have been taken away from its citizens, the people become easy prey for these cowards. Why anyone would want to relieve us of our guns at a time in history when we need them most is ludicrous.

A. J. (Duke) De Luca

Otto