In the Sentinel’s letter section, Tom and Paula Duston, of Chesterfield, argue that they “feel much safer now”:
Wow, now several Republican state representatives want us to have a “permanent state defensive force” (Sentinel, Feb. 22). These guys would help with disaster relief and “defend the state against invasion!”
We live near the Vermont border and lately have had the feeling that a bunch of liberals could mass at any time on the Vermont side of the border and, with few casualties, invade and take over our state. Of course, the last battle of this invasion would be fought at the Statehouse where our concealed weapons force would hold out to the last man (I think most women are smart enough not to carry a concealed weapon!).
And the stuff about “disaster relief” suggests all kinds of cost savings. Just think of how much our taxes would go down if we didn’t have to train firefighters, the police, and emergency response personnel to deal with things like a crashed and leaking chlorine gas truck on Route 9.
And the Red Cross wouldn’t be always begging for money! All we would have to do is call in our gun-totin’ volunteer militia and they could just shoot the gas away.
I’m glad this Legislature is taking up some serious stuff … maybe this thinking comes from those tea parties we’ve heard about?
TOM and PAULA DUSTON
202 Stage Road
Chesterfield
The relevant bill is HB343, and its primary sponsor is Rep. Dan Itse, a Fremont Republican usually popular among libertarians for his strong support of states rights.
Despite sympathy with the underlying motivation, the proposal has alienated many libertarians. Local activist Andrew Carroll, for example, argues that the bill would simply “put more guns in the hands of the government”.
The Adjutant Generals Department estimates the force would raise NH government spending by $480,000 in 2012, $513,000 in 2013, $530,000 in 2014, and $561,000 in 2015. (See the fiscal impact note at the bottom of the bill text.)
