Ackley's statements false, confusing

Dear Editor:
There are several false and confusing statements in Bob Ackley’s letter published in the Feb. 2 edition.
First, the tactic of using “creeping legislation” (as in incremental steps) to accomplish an agenda is employed by both parties, as it is a legitimate (even common and maybe necessary) legislative tool.  
Second, his statement about more people being killed by knives than firearms is false. Far more people are killed (homicides, suicides, accidentally) with firearms than knives. Perhaps he is confusing (or distorting) “rifles” with “firearms,” as rifles are a fairly small component of firearm-caused deaths.
 I’ve no idea what he meant by the phrase “corrupt, power-drunk politician or bureaucrat.” Does he know a bunch of people like that? I have worked in both government (a large city in Texas for 14 years) and the private sector (the rest of my working life—I’m 63) and my sister has worked for either the FBI or Justice Department for over 25 years. Neither of us are corrupt, nor are we power-drunk and we have known very few of our co-workers who are, although I suppose there are some government employees that are that way. I guess that’s what we get for hiring/electing human beings to govern us.
Regardless, assuming that individual rights should be limited (as in your right to swing the ends of your arms where another’s face begins and not to shout “fire” in a crowded theater when there is none, etc.), who else but government employees should administer and enforce these limits?
I also don’t quite understand what he meant by his statement about operating a vehicle being a right as opposed to a privilege; regardless, is he advocating no limits to how we drive on public roads?
Citizens United is not the Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited contributions by PACs. It does allow corporations and unions to spend as much as they want to try and convince people to vote for a particular candidate, but does not allow them unlimited contributions directly to someone pursuing federal office.  
There was a lower-court decision that removed limits on groups that make political expenditures that are supposed to be independent of the candidate, such as PACs. In practice, this “independence” has been questionable in many instances, but  the expenditures are not direct contributions to the candidate.
Lastly, Supreme Court decisions are always subject to change by a later Supreme Court or by amending the Constitution. Is he against this; if so, what alternative regime would he propose?
As a wise man once said  “We are all entitled to our own opinions; we are not entitled to our own facts.”
Steve Turman
Red Oak