Published in the Iola Register on Apr. 26, 2013.

Letter to the Editor 4-26-13

Dear Editor,
So the Blade only publishes favorable comments?? (RE: Keith Palmquist). As I said in my comments that were never posted on your website, I am one among many who are NOT totally against expanding background checks to gun shows and on-line sales, but not for a program with loose language about records retention, administered by the federal government. A commonsense proposal properly written with sufficient privacy protections would be easy to support, much like requiring photo ID before someone is allowed to vote—or to buy liquor.
The Senate could have opted for approval by a "simple" majority but that would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting the details. A thorough debate might have revealed that the measure's finer points aren't as 2nd Amendment and privacy friendly as proponents claim, so the White House and Harry Reid demanded the Senate try to pass the amendment without that debate.
I know that loose promises were made about record retention, but I still remember a promise made to Congressman Bart Stupak about taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare that was violated almost before the ink from President Obama's signature was dry.
For the current administration, this issue is less about guns and more about control.
                                              Kevin Stover