Let's improve our environment without restricting Liberty

I believe that we need to strive to reduce pollution, and to encourage others to do likewise. Unfortunately most of our "environmentalists" are focusing on trying to restrict what kind of vehicles people can own, when the nation's largest polluter is not SUVs, but inefficient buildings. I think we need to work on creating more opportunity for people to use alternative energy sources. Solar energy has become more efficient, reliable, unobtrusive, and cost-effective. I think that we should try to get at least some government buildings that have a roof with a good view of the southern horizon equipped with solar panels. There should also be tax breaks and low interest loans available for those individuals and businesses who wish to install solar panels on their buildings. If we can get enough people to use solar panels on their homes to significantly reduce the demand for electricity, we might be able to get some of our oil burning power plants to reduce the amount of oil that they burn, thereby reducing pollution, reducing our dependence on foreign countries for our oil, and reducing the cost of diesel fuel. That would also translate to lower costs for the products that we buy that are delivered by truck and train. I think that we should encourage the manufacture of biodiesel, and use of biodiesel in diesel powered trucks and trains. I believe that we should promote the building of energy efficient homes. Unfortunately most banks are unwilling to finance extremely energy efficient homes because they are not the norm and are perceived as difficult to sell in the event of a foreclosure. Instead people continue to build homes that are energy drains, burning large quantities of home heating oil during the winter to keep them warm and using excessive amounts of electricity to cool them during the summer. A well designed earth sheltered home uses only about 1/10th the energy that a regular stick-built home does, without compromising natural lighting. Loan guarantees and tax breaks should be made available to those who wish to build earth sheltered homes.
Noise pollution - Lately there have been groups of people and trial lawyers who have been sueing ranges in attempts to bankrupt them and close them down. They complain that the noise disturbs them. If they are successful, gunowners will have to resort to shooting in their yards and in the woods around housing developments, where there aren't man-made berms designed to stop the bullets and reduce noise getting out. Closing ranges would make neighborhoods less safe. A better solution to the noise problem would be to encourage the use of noise suppressors, commonly known as silencers. (For starters, remove the federal tax and paperwork.) Also, building berms taller and planting trees and other vegetation around ranges would reduce the amount of noise reaching surrounding neighborhoods, and would better stop any stray bullets. Also, if you're going to build a home near a range or a heavily traveled road, and you don't want to hear the noise, build an earth sheltered home, because not only are they more efficient and stronger than conventional homes, the earth also does a great job of muffling noise.

NH's RSA 207:4 needs to be repealed.

Unfortunately most people do not seem to know that hearing loss is cumulative. Having served in the US Army for 6 years, my hearing went from almost perfect, to barely inside the normal range. I have a hard time hearing high pitched sounds, except for the constant ringing in my ears. I usually have a hard time understanding my wife when she talks to me. Although some would contend that that isn't necessarily a bad thing, what if she were to say something important, and I were to think that she had said something completely different? The reason I am writing is that I would like help in my goal of repealing a state law that makes it illegal for hunters to take measures that reduce the noise that their firearms make. RSA 207:4 does nothing to reduce crime and serves no benefit to the people of New Hampshire. I have tried to explain this to many people, but my arguments seem to fall on deaf ears. Some legislators have told me that when you are hunting, you do not fire many rounds, so it doesn't cause a significant amount of hearing loss. Others have told me that Fish & Game would oppose it's repeal because they want to be able to hear the sound of the gun being fired. Some have even argued that if the use of suppressors while hunting were legalized, people would start using them for poaching. I ask that you read a study that was conducted by the Finnish government which is posted at the Suppressor Project Summary. It will tell you that "No suppressor or 'silencer' is able to prevent flight noise" and "Suppressors do not favour poaching since they have no effect on bullet noise." If a person were willing to break one law by poaching, what makes anyone think that another law would make him change his mind? Along the same lines, if a hunter decided to obey the law and buy a hunting license and follow game laws, what makes anyone think that allowing him to use a suppressor would make him decide to break the law? Why does the state prohibit people from protecting their hearing? I believe it is because of ignorance. Everything most people believe about suppressors or "silencers" was accrued from watching lousy movies and is based purely on fiction. Please work to repeal RSA 207:4, and help to reduce the need for hearing aids.

NFA laws are stupid, and need to be repealed.

I believe that freedom was unjustly taken away from all of us by foolish lawmakers long before I was born. Do you believe that we should just sit idly by while Americans' rights are being trampled by those who are paid with taxes that we are forced to pay to enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws? There are far too many foolish laws on the books now. For instance, sound suppressors, which serve to protect the hearing of the user and those around him when it is attached to a firearm, are strictly regulated, and those who buy them are required to go through an array of red tape and pay a $200 tax each time one is sold. Possession of just a piece of a suppressor can get someone thrown in prison. Also, shotguns with barrels under 18" and rifles with barrels under 16", although no more dangerous than one with a longer barrel, are restricted the same way that a suppressor is. Even a pistol with a forward vertical grip is heavily restricted, requiring lots of paperwork and a transfer or building tax. These laws serve no purpose but to put otherwise law abiding citizens in prison and to keep government spending high. It is sad that a person caught violating one of these NFA laws without committing any other crimes is often punished more harshly than many murderers. I believe that any law is unjust that prohibits a law abiding citizen from possessing or using anything that they are not using to cause harm to others. Now, are you going to just sit idly by allowing injustices to continue, or are you going to work to repeal these unjust and unconstitutional laws?