Roosevelt archive (copy)

This 1884 photo shows Theodore Roosevelt standing with a saddled horse in the Badlands of Dakota Territory. Roosevelt originally came to what is now North Dakota is hopes of killing a buffalo. The future president stayed there after becoming enamored with the rugged, beautiful territory of the badlands. 

When you’re a dual resident of South Carolina and New Hampshire, both early primary states, it’s difficult to avoid political news. I hear a lot of it, and much of it sounds the same. But July 10 felt different.

On July 10, I watched a fellow conservative and my South Carolina senator, Lindsey Graham, take a bold step toward reclaiming the environment as a conservative priority. I was proud to witness the launch of the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus, with all eight members Republicans.

There is nothing contradictory about conservatism and conservation.

If you believe in “America first,” you should want our men and women on the leading edge of growing industries to create cleaner energy sources.

If you love fishing or hunting, you should want to make sure there will always be fish in our rivers and game in our woods. If you love this country, you should want to protect it.

I feel so strongly about conservation that, as both a constituent and the board chairman for The Nature Conservancy in South Carolina, I went to Washington, D.C., in June to meet with Sen. Graham on that very topic.

I told him then that his support of various environmental bills made me proud to have him as a senator. I feel that way even more today.

Thank you, Sens. Graham, Cory Gardner, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Richard Burr, Steve Daines and Rep. Brian Mast and Will Hurd for taking this important step forward.

JIM ROTHNIE

Chairman, South Carolina Chapter

The Nature Conservancy

Brays Island

Sheldon

Silencer ban

I support the right to purchase and own firearms. That said, I think S.C Attorney General Alan Wilson was on shaky ground in arguing that silencers should be protected by the Second Amendment because a ban on them could eventually lead to a ban on ammo.

Indeed, it’s regrettable that he referred to ammunition as “an accessory” in his comments in The Post and Courier’s June 16 Palmetto Politics column.

Unlike a silencer, ammo is part and parcel of a firearm. The phrase “part and parcel” has been used in law for centuries to describe an essential or basic component of something, in this case a firearm.

Conversely, “accessory” is commonly used to define something that is nonessential but useful, versatile and attractive. Silencers are useful and versatile, and perhaps even attractive in the eye of the beholder. Those words don’t describe a component essential and basic to a firearm.

I believe the AG and his counterparts in the other six states should not have joined the appeal to the Supreme Court. Their time and resources would have been better spent preparing to confidently and successfully argue that there can be no doubt that ammo is part and parcel of a firearm. Then, if the need ever arose, they would be ready to meet the challenge.

DAVID ALLEN

Marsh Harbor Drive

Beaufort

Texting flaw

If one were to send a letter via the U.S. Postal Service to an unknown address, it would be returned to the sender.

Get a weekly recap of South Carolina opinion and analysis from The Post and Courier in your inbox on Monday evenings.


If one were to call a number that does not exist, a message would be provided to the caller indicating such.

If one were to send an email to a nonexistent address, a return message would be sent to the source saying “The recipient does not exist,” or something to that effect.

Yet, if one sends a text message to an invalid number, the sender has absolutely no clue the message did not go through.

This is absolutely incredible. With our current, ultra-modern technology that is so often praised, we still can’t figure out a way to let someone know a text message went off to never-never land and is forever gone?

Almost weekly, I get a phone call, or email, from someone inquiring about “my response” to a text message that was sent to me.

Often, this is from someone who has already been informed that I only have a landline telephone.

OK, I get it, I’m a dinosaur since I have not jumped on the mobile phone bandwagon. I do not have either a Facebook or Twitter account, nor any social media account.

However, folks like me do still exist. Besides, a text message could also be sent to a canceled mobile phone number and the sender still would not know.

This is a huge deficiency. Does anyone know why?

MICHAEL CHIARITO

Palmetto Walk Drive

Summerville

We're improving out commenting experience.

We’ve temporarily removed comments from articles while we work on a new and better commenting experience. In the meantime, subscribers are encouraged to join the conversation at our Post and Courier Subscribers group on Facebook.