Yesterday, I watched several hours of Hillary Clinton's testimony to Congress.
The majority of the Congressmen and women were polite, expressing their views and questions without an "attitude."
However, one Congressman, whose name escapes me, criticized the secretary for not firing two people, who were on leave.
She very politely told him that laws (voted on by Congress, by the way) dictate how she handles terminating employees.
But the worst criticism was Rand Paul's verbal attack, which was uncalled for.
Yes, it's a tragedy that four people (who, by the way, knew the dangers when they signed up for the job) were killed, but I hardly think it's the worst tragedy since 9/11, as Paul stated; plus, previous embassy attacks resulted in worse.
The worst tragedy since 9/11 is the average of six to eight servicemen and women killed each week in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Does Congressman Paul realize how many families of our military he may have hurt or offended with his statement? Does he think we should have a committee to investigate our military command and the deaths (a ludicrous idea)?
I guess the politicians are getting their "ducks in a row" already for the next election.
Gretchen D. Demole, Titusville
Elected officials are dishonest
Gun control has long been a focus of many in this country.
Though I'm not knowledgeable of all the nuances of the Second Amendment, based on the Founding Fathers' circumstances, it had far more to do with enabling the citizenry to protect themselves against tyrannical government than against local criminal psychopaths.
It is about providing a balanced firepower, so when King George's successor came knocking on your door, you could fight back.
Government today is no less inclined to abuse its authority than it was then. Based on the absurd and ongoing power grab that is present-day Washington, it's as threatening as ever.
That so many of you view the National Rifle Association, with its resistance to further restrictions on firearms, as intransigent lunatics has far more to do with how you conduct yourselves in office than it does with the NRA's actions.
You, in public office, are fundamentally dishonest people.
You lead lives of deception at every turn, structuring your lives as comfortably as you can, while governing with an indifference and arrogance that is absolutely maddening.
When the country is reeling from financial disaster, you waste a trillion dollars on a health care bill we can't afford and you've never read. You claim it's critical, because health care costs are killing this country. No they're not, you are! You are killing this country.
You endorse the ongoing slaughter of millions of unborn children and whine when terrorists are water boarded.
You can't lecture us right in Newtown High School about not doing enough to keep our children safe, while simultaneously slaughtering the unborn.
You fabricate the intense, media-laden drama of the fiscal cliff and lack the courage to do anything about truly reforming the obscene gluttony of government. You know you'll be out of office before the bill comes due. You don't care and have no integrity or honor.
You lie whenever and wherever you need to move forth your agenda.
Were you able, you would purge the United States of guns ... every last gun in the country, if you could.
So please forgive Wayne LaPierre and those of us who don't trust you as far as we can spit.
You're a dishonest lot, motivated by a distorted worldview.
If mass murder prevention were truly your goal, you would welcome armed security wherever needed. It is outrageous that we protect our money with far more firepower than we protect our children.
I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to as intensely as right now.
Bruce Barrett, Palm Bay
Mexico's gun control
Mexico's Constitution of 1867, created after its independence from Spain, contained a provision similar to the United States Constitution's Second Amendment. It provided Mexico's citizens the "right to keep and bear arms."
However, over the last 145 years, changes were made to:
Prohibit private ownership of guns outside of homes, except those specifically authorized by the government.
Guns for home defense are restricted to certain types and sizes, essentially restricting semi-automatic guns for military, security officers, private security, VIP's, public officials and dignitaries.
All guns must be registered with the government.
Hunting and sport guns, along with shooting locations, must be specifically authorized by the government.
How is this gun control working out for Mexico's citizens, where thousands are murdered every year in streets and public places?
Drug cartels and other criminal elements have no problem in obtaining guns, including from our Justice Department.
There are those advocating similar changes in the United States. Do we want to replicate the Mexico experience? Strict gun limits in New York, Washington, D.C. and Chicago instruct us on the failure of Mexico style laws.
The Second Amendment allows every citizen the freedom to protect them and their family.
Let us all protect IT!
Bill Tolley, Melbourne