Apply travel ban logic to gun control

The recent Supreme Court ruling to uphold President Trump’s travel ban is both disheartening and difficult to make sense of. The Court’s reasoning of “rational basis review” is like saying “a few bad apples can spoil the bunch.”

If that’s the logic, then shouldn’t we be applying this to gun control? According to an Anti-Defamation League report, of the 34 extremist-related deaths in the US in 2017 nine were tied to Islamic extremists, 18 to white supremacists. Moreover, CDC reports show over 15,500 gun related deaths in 2017, with 25 percent of the victims being children.

Certainly with these numbers the conclusion is clear: When it comes to gun owners, a few bad apples have spoiled the bunch and taken far too many lives.

David Soliday, Charlotte

Trump had authority on travel ban

In response to Our View “A Supreme Court ruling for everyone” (June 29 Editorial):

I find the Observer editorial board’s opinion regarding the Supreme Court decision on the travel ban intellectually dishonest.

The facts are very simple. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the power to deny aliens entry to the US whenever it is determined to be in our interest. Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress and the president authority on this.

Jack Evans, Fort Mill

No reason to call for Richardson’s head

In response to “Panthers’ Richardson hit with $2.75M NFL fine” (June 29):

Everyone is wanting Jerry Richardson’s head on a platter – take down the statue and all.

In the scheme of things what he is accused of is not all that bad compared to former Mecklenburg Commissioner Bob Walton, though I don’t condone such. Walton was convicted and did jail time for having relations with an 18-year-old boy in his church office. After that, the county named Bob Walton Plaza after him. And, folks kept re-electing him.

Jerry was not convicted and did not go to jail, though he was generous and had nondisclosure agreements with the people who accused him.

Bill Lane, Polkville

Hold off on Supreme Court nominee

No vote should be taken on a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel has submitted a report to Congress, or closed the investigation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, we are watching you. Please do the right thing and do not confirm Donald Trump’s nominee until after the president is thoroughly investigated for his role in the alleged collusion between his campaign and Russian agents.

This process should not be rushed.

Cynthia Carner, Fort Mill

Demand Russians return Snowden

In response to “Summit between Trump and Putin set for Helsinki” (June 29):

I hope President Trump knows that Russia is continuing to grant asylum to perhaps the greatest traitor (i.e. a “leaker” in Trump’s Twitter world) in modern times – Edward Snowden.

His return by the Russians to the US to stand trial for his crimes of publicly revealing sensitive intelligence collection methods and sources and classified information should be demand Number 1 on Trump’s list. And that demand should be met before the US agrees to remove any sanctions in place or support Russia becoming part of the G7 organization again.

Dumont Clarke, Charlotte

Now is the time to stand up for justice

I disagree with the editorial “Liberals lose when they act like Donald Trump” (June 26 Our View). Loudly and publicly expressing disapproval of government officials for their role in the cruel mistreatment of thousands of children is not the same as demeaning anyone whose political views differ from yours. And how can we say such protests are “not necessary”? Have all of the children been returned to their families? Has the administration forsaken its scapegoating and dehumanization of racial and religious minorities?

Martin Luther King Jr. wisely warned about “the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

Tyler Dodds, Davidson