Letter: Port apparently prefers to wait and see if something bad happens

A person holds a letter with the text "letter to the editor" overlaid on the image.

Rob Port doesn’t like the idea of disarming a dangerous person during the time the person is dangerous, instead of the less dangerous alternative. This, according to his Jan. 20th column .

He considers it a pre-crime police tactic to confiscate a gun from someone who “might” do something bad with it. Port wants to wait and see.

It’s the same deal with background checks. The government currently uses clues to deny millions of people the right to hold a gun, or even smell one. The U.S. is already pre-confiscating guns by refusing the right for something a person might do. I'm good with that.

I’m for more and better background checks. And a Red Flag law in North Dakota. Red Flag laws are more subjective than the computer lists that pop out information for the Scheel’s clerk. They are better and uncommon. Yet, the Ports of the world only bark at red and don’t even notice the lonely background check.

A Red Flag law does the same thing as a background check. We look at some clues and play the odds.


I always enjoy Mr. Port’s columns.

What To Read Next
Gerald B. Jacobs writes, "Considering the wide-spread violence in the U.S. compared to other countries, it seems that longer sentencing might not be getting at the problem."
Ken Sims writes, "Progressives use 'separation of church and state' to argue against a national religion. But what they are really separating is God (not church) from government and promoting secularism."
Kevin J. Glatt of Bismarck writes, "Perhaps we have a property tax exemption problem in North Dakota."
Lee Purrier of Park Rapids, Minn., writes about Biden's COVID response, aid to Ukraine and recent legislation.