Open letter to residents

Hello, citizens of Pahrump. We would like to set the record straight.

First, the issue at hand was to bar weapons from town buildings and property such as the Ruud center, town annex and town offices. This was only a safety issue and was considered as a matter of workplace safety and workplace violence.

It was not, as incorrectly reported by some, an effort to ban weapons throughout the entire town of Pahrump.

Our intention was to consider and review options that reflected other public entities that legally prohibit firearms, such as schools, airports, courts, etc. (See Mirror, Thad Lowe's article, dated Feb. 5).

Unfortunately, that backfired and the issue was blown out of proportion before we could gather citizen input.

Before the meeting the town attorney advised the town could not create an ordinance prohibiting weapons, so we felt it was appropriate to pull the item from the agenda.

Neither the town board nor the town manager would ever think about prohibiting, barring or banning weapons from the entire town of Pahrump.

Second, Mrs. Shupp's (the chairman) job is to run a professional meeting in an orderly manner. Her intentions were to keep the meeting under control.

Mrs. Shupp and the board advised those in attendance the item was being pulled and that it would not be brought back at any time in the future. The chairman and board had the right to pull public comment since the item was dead.

In doing so, Mrs. Shupp followed proper NRS and open meeting law protocol.

We appreciate your understanding in this matter. If you should have a question on an agenda item, please feel free to contact either of us. We always have time to hear from the citizens and listen to their opinions.

NICOLE SHUPP

WILLIAM A. KOHBARGER

Yucca Mountain helped economy

I admit I am a novice when it comes to good or poor politics. I depend on news and organization information.

However, I see many problems with the state budget and some of it is caused by expenditures to close Yucca Mountain. I am a Democrat and I do not agree with the money spent to fight Yucca Mountain.

Yucca Mountain should be used for nuclear waste, and other states should pay well to maintain and protect Yucca Mountain. The closure of Yucca Mountain caused revenue to be lost.

Yucca Mountain would have benefited the state of Nevada and most likely we would not be in the economical situation we are now.

As far as I am concerned, fighting against Yucca Mountain cost us the revenue and stability needed.

We invite criminals by the nature of our state advertisements and entertainment. We then bring them to our prison system, and then we the taxpayers pay to imprison them.

Yucca Mountain would carry some unpleasant waste but we would be getting paid for storage and protection of the site. This income would not stop when our economy has a problem.

Now if the legislature implements the cuts requested by Gov. Gibbons, it will add to housing foreclosures and additional loss of revenue to businesses. It seems a part tax increase on mines, and the (would have been) Yucca Mountain would be stable revenue.

The state workers I know live payday to payday and a reduction in wages puts them in home foreclosure position.

Most workers I know have overextended their purchases in vehicles and housing. Few workers are able to adjust to a 6 percent decrease in wages.

The actual predicted budget would get worse and a spiraling downward would take place.

If there is not a better approach to the budget than Gov. Gibbons has presented, I would expect to see our economy go into a downward spiral.

Now as they meet in the legislative session, I hope they have additional areas they can create to increase the state income and put more people back to work.

It does seem to me the lost funds to Yucca Mountain from the last two years helped unstable our state economy.

I wish the legislator's best and within six months you and I will know if they have made the right decisions.

LEO VATH

Best Christmas present ever

This Christmas, instead of a gift, I was provided with a receipt, which indicated my wife purchased dog and cat food for the Pahrump animal shelters.

Due to the state of the economy and the amount of animals that have discarded by the community, I considered this one of the best presents I could have hoped for.

Upon relating our using presents for the sheltered animals to our daughter in Texas, she indicated our grandson's birthday party did not hand out gifts but suggested animal food be brought to the party for donation to their local shelter.

They ended up with a van full of food, and each child was left with a feeling they had at least contributed a little to help the animals.

JACK HARP

Disarming government meetings

I remember an incident last year where one of our county commissioners was threatened by an armed man at a county meeting.

The result was the sheriff's office had to use extra resources to place an officer at these meetings in order to deter future, similar situations.

Shortly after that, there was an incident in another county where a public officer was shot by an enraged citizen controlled by emotion rather than good judgment.

This is why government agencies around the country do not allow firearms at public meetings.

From an international and historical perspective, the construction of the House of Commons in Canada separates the official opposition from the majority government by an aisle of two swords-length, which is approximately 13 feet, to deter legislative violence.

In England this distance is marked by a red line with the idea that should the aggressor cross the line the representatives could respond with violence.

Could this be where the term "toeing the line" came from?

Julius Caesar was assassinated by senators who were allowed to address him armed. This was a premeditated act and were arms restricted, the civil war that followed would not have occurred.

I also recall an incident not too long ago in Iraq where a number of the media threw his shoes at our president -- both of them. Better shoes than something else, right?

The point is that emotions do run high at these meetings and there is risk for rash actions. When addressing government, it ought to be done without weapons to demonstrate a peaceful exchange. It is too bad this item was pulled from the agenda because it does need to be debated publicly and both sides need to have their opinions heard.

Personally, I would be more comfortable with a few more deputies at that meeting. It may also be prudent for that meeting to check firearms at the door in order to level the playing field.

The Second Amendment addresses the maintenance of freedom by the right to bear arms without restriction. In the instance of government business, freedom is limited by bearing arms at these meetings because debate is restricted by the element of threat created by the firearm's presence.

If those who bear arms at these meetings are devoted to the idea of freedom, which is a principle that ranks higher than simply bearing arms, then they ought not to bear arms at these meetings because they are purveyors of freedom first and firearms second.

True freedom comes from being able to share political insight freely.

JACOB SKINNER