Muslims do condemn this violent fringe
In response to “More Muslims must reject these acts” (June 16 Forum):
The writer is a member of the Research Triangle area Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
Holding Muslims responsible for actions of fringe lunatics is akin to holding Christians responsible for the actions of the KKK.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Certainly only a minuscule percentage of Muslims, even fewer practicing Muslims, subscribe to the crazy ideology of killing innocents indiscriminately.
This perverted teaching, which is causing unrest across the globe, is un-Islamic in every sense and must be condemned in no uncertain terms.
That is why the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been championing the nonviolent teachings of Islam for over a century. Our organization has been active in condemning violent, twisted strains of Islam through all forms of media.
Seidu Malik, Chapel Hill
Trump’s immigration plan would protect us
Trump’s immigration plan would protect us
I’m certain there are many Muslims as horrified as Christians and others regarding these atrocities.
But we simply don’t know how many closet sympathizers actually support these horrific acts.
Donald Trump is right to stop immigration temporarily to protect the United States. We need to stem the bleeding.
President Obama’s indignation was not at the Orlando shooter, but instead directed at Trump.
Kathleen Moore, Clover, S.C.
McCrory’s prayers fall flat after HB2
In response to “Will massacre change the political tone in North Carolina?” (June 14):
Gov. Pat McCrory’s prayers for Orlando are hollow. He stumps for laws like HB2, which deny gay people rights.
He cannot preach this message then offer prayers when a radical American targets and kills gay people.
It’s like letting the dog out of the house, but denying any responsibility when it bites the neighbor.
Or, it’s like telling women he will not disrupt access to safe reproductive health care, but then doing just that.
These misguided dichotomies will matter when we vote in November.
Janet Blanchard, Black Mountain
I’m losing hope about gun regulation
There is a fatal illness that has swept across the land: gunorrhea. There are 300 million guns in the U.S. and legislatures bought off by the NRA pass laws to protect the owners.
There have been so many tragic cases where a demented gunman has killed dozens of people.
In Europe, where guns are carefully regulated, people are appalled at our carnage.
There is little hope.
Watson Burts, Charlotte
Owning a gun is my right; I’m prepared
In response to “Pulling out your handgun no solution” (June 16 Forum)
Forum writer Woody Mitchell is correct that engaging an active shooter in a packed nightclub risks disaster from friendly fire.
However, my firearm at least gives me the choice of not cowering and begging for my life while a lunatic murders me.
I reserve the right to choose not to be a victim. That right is affirmed to me as a citizen of this country.
History has shown us that these perpetrators intentionally choose targets that allow them to rack up a body count unimpeded. Wake up.
Mike Wilson, Concord
Having a gun in hand offers no guarantee
In response to “This jihad against guns is misguided” (June 15 Forum):
Please tell Forum writer Patricia Broderick that someone did have a gun in the nightclub. There was an off-duty police officer working security there.
He was NOT able to stop a gunman who had a rapid-fire assault-type rifle.
Susan Griffis, Hickory
Limit high-capacity killing weapons
There does not seem to be a valid reason for the general public to be able to own a weapon designed for the battlefield to inflict multiple deaths.
The Second Amendment has limitations. Citizens can’t buy machine guns or rocket propelled grenades for street use.
The AR-15 and similar high-capacity killing weapons should be added to that list.
The United States has much to be proud of, but our gun death statistics are dismal compared to other civilized nations.
Surely we can improve on that with some sensible but not too restrictive changes in our laws.
If not, there is no reason to expect a different result.
Vincent Keipper, Concord