Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
@kovie -- one more time
[Read the article: Mike Allen, consummate Beltway "journalist"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... You want Dems to move right to impeachment now, before they've fully investigated. That is NOT how Watergate proceeded, as you yourself pointed out. Like I said, you contradict yourself in the very same comment. ...
"Off you meds? ... and so forth" What silly middle-school cheap shots from you.
You have misread my position. (I am as shocked as Claude Reins was over gambling)
Let me type **Real Slowly** for the kids in the back. I want impeachment to be on the table and not "off the table". Is that really hard for you to understand?!?
-
@Jonathan Hoag
[Read the article: Mike Allen, consummate Beltway "journalist"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]B1: "I have not written on my position on guns to this comment section of Glenn's since he moved here to Salon."
JH: "You did so on the last thread, in reply to my question about nuclear weapons."
Sorry, JH. That was no discussion of my position --- only an off-hand coment to a question that was a tad over the top.
The gun control issue is not settled by asking only "should citizens have nukes" and I suspect that you are aware of this. No?
-
@Jonathan Hoag
[Read the article: Mike Allen, consummate Beltway "journalist"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]b1: "Sorry, JH. That was no discussion of my position --- only an off-hand comment to a question that was a tad over the top."
JH: "Do I really have to go back and find your words and quote them to you, b1"
You can if you want to do so.
I am saying that those words were no position paper and rationale. They were off-the-cuff remarks. Clear?
Now, one could see that I am against "gun control" but you can not tell exactly what I think "gun control" is. No, that is not a Clinton "what is, is" statement. It is simply to say the issue is not a bumper-sticker slogan issue.
Do you think it is?
----
By the way, do you think my local sheriff having military tanks is proper? You may have said at the end of the last thread, but I stopped reading it. If I missed a post, tell me and I'll check it out.
-
But you plainly wrote ....
[Read the article: Mike Allen, consummate Beltway "journalist"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LWM, you wrote that Ron Paul was wrong, so wrong he was a broke clock.
So you must be for the war, the horrible Patriot Act, against habeas corpus, loves torture, love spying on US citizens, and be a big TSA supporter --- or, you do not believe that Ron Paul is dead wrong on everything.
Which is it?
-
@Jonathan Hoag
[Read the article: Mike Allen, consummate Beltway "journalist"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]JH: "Apparently you didn't read my post about brevity being the soul of communication."
I may have missed that one. Are you saying that we only communicate in sound bites?
JH: "One either believes that weaponry should be available to the citizenry or one does not."
I must reject this either/or thinking as just too simplistic for the topic. I'll give one short example; and I promise to write to you on weapon control when I get the time to do the subject justice.
My example:
In a small town in a backwards area there was a town that decided by vote of the citizens to make guns off limits inside the city limits. This law should come up each year so that one generation does not impose their will on the next, but that is not the point.
Does this little town have the right to (by democratic vote) outlaw private weapon ownership?
-
@Jonathan Hoag
[Read the article: Mike Allen, consummate Beltway "journalist"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]JH: 'The very concept of "gun control" is inextricably intertwined with that of "government". You deny the validity of the concept of "government", yet if there is no "government", as you wish, then there is no one to enforce "gun control".'
The fact that you can not imagine staying safe without a big government to "protect you" does not surprise me. However, I took you to mean that you wanted to discuss "gun control" in the present situation we find ourselves.
If there had been only a non-state world in 1900, I doubt seriously that the control of weapons would be an issue today. But, it is now, and in this country.
Have you ever read of the defence posture of the Swiss? It might bring enlightenment to you on the issue. (as well as standing armies and war departments)
JH : It would seem that you have not really thought out the consequences and implications of some of your political ideas.
And I think it you who is not looking below the surface knee-jerk opinions.
I read a historian compare the murder rates in the old-west gold rush towns vs. Boston (I think Boston) and it turned out that Boston was far more dangerous in spite of all the fine Hollywood movies that make it look otherwise. (hmmm, maybe the movies are only fiction, eh?)
-
@IntrovertGirl
[Read the article: Mike Allen, consummate Beltway "journalist"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... You don't believe there should be government, so your answer would be no ...
Exaclty what does my belieing in government have to do with anything? We would be much better off with no government, but we have one. We would be much better off with a small weak central government as the founders intended, but we do not have that.
I am writing about the USA we have today on Sunday Jun 3rd. So, I would formulate an answer based on what would be the best for people today.
... My answer is that I believe enforcing lower gun ownership is, on balance, better for society than allowing any kind of ownership.
Perhaps. But exactly what do we mean by "lower gun ownership", as I have heard that the devil lives in the details.