Letters: The NRA vs. an Obama nominee

Re "NRA's latest target," Editorial, March 23

The Times believes that the "gun lobby's skewed view of the world" is responsible for the opposition in the Senate and by the National Rifle Assn. to Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy's nomination to be the next U.S. surgeon general.


Certainly, Murthy — as well as myself, a former Navy medical officer and an NRA member — understand that guns kill people everywhere.

But we do live in a free country, and though I disagree with the NRA on this particular point, I believe the "far too powerful gun lobby" has just as much right to speak as those who have the same right to listen and agree or disagree.

Michael L. Friedman, MD


You begin your editorial by suggesting that some twisted worldview will have been the reason should Murthy's nomination be rejected by the Senate. But later on you say it will be because of the temerity of Democratic senators from pro-gun states, which I think will prove closer to the truth.

If, in fact, the deaths of 20 little kids and six adults not even a year and a half ago in Connecticut are again cynically ignored by Congress, I think it may prove with certainty to most Democrats in the country as to how truly pointless it is to even bother to vote in November.

Ronald Webster

Long Beach

According to the FBI, terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives. Based on that definition, some might say the NRA is a terrorist organization.

Most of the country wants more gun control. Yet even after the slaughter in Connecticut, we did not get better gun laws but rather a more belligerent and coercive NRA.

Politicians are scared of the NRA. Will there ever be anyone in the country brave enough to stand up to this organization?

Donna Handy

Santa Barbara