Readers write: Letters to the editor, March 5, 2018

Protect kids; vote no on prop. 1

As parents of young children, we are very concerned about the outcome of April's municipal election. In particular, we are worried about how the results of Proposition 1 will affect the safety of our children. We urge our fellow residents to vote no on Proposition 1.

Proposition 1, which forces residents to use the restroom that corresponds to their designated sex at birth according to their original birth certificate, does nothing to protect our children. It is already illegal to assault or harass any person in a restroom. This proposition only serves to discriminate against our transgender neighbors who have long been using the restroom that matches their gender identity without causing harm to any of their neighbors.

Though most of our children are too young to express their gender identities yet, we fully support whoever they grow up to be. Research has shown that support from their families and communities has an incredibly positive impact on the mental health of transgender youths. We believe that Proposition 1 would legalize discrimination in our community. Many of us are educators or community volunteers who have directly witnessed the effects of discrimination on transgender youths in Anchorage. We believe that all of our children deserve to feel safe when they use restrooms and public facilities, including our transgender children. Proposition 1 is an attempt to make transgender residents feel uncomfortable using public spaces which will affect our transgender friends and families, but even more so transgender youths. Furthermore, requiring all residents to carry their original birth certificates and present them to use the restroom is an invasion of our privacy and makes this proposition impossible to reasonably enforce.

We ask all Anchorage residents who are sincerely concerned for the safety of our children to vote no on Proposition 1.

— Colleen Heaney-Mead
Anchorage

Say no to NRA, assault weapons

I understand that Congressman Don Young is a hunter. I understand that he has trophies on his walls. I don't know, but I trust that he is a good enough shot that he was able to kill them without the use of an "assault" weapon.

Assault weapons are for the military. They are to kill people. If you "assaulted" a deer or moose, perhaps you need another kind of help.

I ask all our elected officials to stop taking money from the NRA. I know many of the members are reasonable people, but the leadership has turned it into nothing short of a terrorist organization. You would never take money from any other organizations whose actions have led to the deaths of so many people. Say no to the NRA.

— Connie Faipeas
Anchorage

U.S. can't afford to take weapons

There is a lot of talk about banning assault-type rifles. For the sake of this letter, I will skip over the ludicrous descriptions of what designates one assault-style rifle over another rifle that does the exact same thing. In addition to banning the sale of these so called assault-style rifles, it would also make it a felony to own one.
Take a look at the "takings" clause of the U.S. Constitution known better as Amendment 5 — Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Among other things it reads "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The latest polls estimate that there are about 350 million guns in the U.S. Let's assume that just 10 percent of those are of the so-called assault style. An average price nowadays for a common AR-style rifle is about $1,500. If the government wanted to obey the Constitution and repossess all the AR-type rifles it would cost tax payers approximately $52 billion.

— Eric Olenick
Anchorage