Today’s letters: Readers comment on news coverage of The Villages and the Second Amendment – Daily Commercial

Covering The Villages

Throughout Donald Trumps presidency and during most of the 2020 election, it seemed like The Villages made headlines every week. A picture was painted of lines being drawn in the sand, neighbor turning against neighbor, and even some threats of violence. But these events are very rare, especially when you consider the size of the community as a whole with more than 130,000 residents today and growing.

The claims by the media of The Villages being only a Trump-loving community are often blatantly false, some are outdated and others only have a grain of truth to them. The reputation may be related to the developer being a large contributor to Republican politicians; however, The Villages does not support a single political party but is home to residents with varying opinions. According to the Florida Division of Elections, as of Nov. 31, 2021, the number of registered voters in Sumter County (where most Villages residents reside) was 111,753, of which 56.4% were registered as Republicans, 22.4% were registered as Democrats, 1% were registered as as members of a minor party, and 20.2% had no party affiliation.

The media must cover this diversity and call out real sources of fraud. Three voters in Florida all living in The Villages were recently arrested for voting more than once in the 2020 election. They all voted for Trump two registered Republicans and one with no party affiliation. What these arrests actually show is that when would-be criminals try to cheat, the existing system can be strong enough to catch them and hold them legally accountable. And the public deserves accurate coverage, regardless of party affiliation. Where is that coverage?

Susan Koffman, The Villages

In early November 2021, the Supreme Court heard another case on your right to keep and bear arms. Not long ago the court ruled you had that right, but it never discourages liberals from wanting to limit your Second Amendment rights.

Liberals know they can continue to deny individuals their constitutional rights because no law enforcement officer is going to show up at their door with an arrest warrant because the Supreme Court has no power to compel politicians to follow laws they dont like.

The latest case involves two New Yorkers who claim, since the court has ruled, they have a right to own firearms and should not have to show cause as to why any more than any citizen has to show cause as to why they can exercise their right to free speech or practice their religion.

Judges discuss the historical context of our laws as to how they came about. Liberal politicians are going back to early English times and arguing that even though English citizens originally had a right to firearms, those rights were limited and, since our laws are based on early English laws, our rights should be limited also. Its called originalism.

If religious theologians can change some of the Ten Commandments, why cant progressives change the meaning of the Second Amendment? Today, the sixth commandment states, "Thou shall not kill. Originally it was, Thou shall not commit murder. Big difference.

Today, the 10th states, Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife. Originally it was, Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods. In biblical times, a mans wife was part of his goods.

Normally progressives want to move away from originalism, encouraging liberal judges to draft new meanings to laws they dont like. Today, progressives are arguing the reverse. Will they succeed?

Sonny Heninger, Leesburg

Read more:
Today's letters: Readers comment on news coverage of The Villages and the Second Amendment - Daily Commercial