Debate should be based on facts

To The Eagle:

In response to his letter of last week, it would appear that Mr. Schreiber wants to take me to the woodshed. If so, it would be nice if he presented fact rather than innuendo.

At no time did I suggest that the second amendment be scrapped, although it would seem prudent to at least take a look at adjusting it for the technology of our time. Never was it suggested that guns be taken from us but doubt the Founding Fathers would have approved of Joe Blow having a gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute or bump stocks for all. A little responsibility shouldn't be too much to ask for, even now given the current political climate.

Of course I didn't give up my rifle when in the Marines and am glad he held on to his army issued weapon as well. That's why we served, and I thank him for that.

In regard to our newest business in town, marijuana has been used for centuries, if not millennia, for any number of things. All pain isn't from broken bones or terminal cancers. Just trying to survive in a culture that ignores its veterans causes a different kind of pain.

For him to say that he believes marijuana is the tip of the drug iceberg is pitifully subjective. You can believe anything you want but it adds credence if it is based on fact rather than the simplistic, ‘I believe.’

I love a good argument but when it is reduced to the level of his most recent letter, it takes the fun out of it. If anybody wants to have a debate based on fact rather than mere feelings, I'm your guy. So, please do some research before the inevitable rebuttal. I wait, patiently as always.

James Roberts

Cathlamet