Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

Amity

Published Letters: 1110     Editor's Choice: 106

  • L.W.M. on me being a victim of fearmongering

    [Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    It was very difficult if not impossible to get a gun [in Weimar Germany] and this was an attempt to stop all the bloodshed between the various political factions, (literally raging gun battles in the streets).

    Thanks for your link to an edifying article. I do have to point out that it doesn't say what you say it does. According to the article, Germany's gun control laws were imposed right after the war and kept in place for the next decade. That was during the earliest period of the rise of the Nazis, long before they had the kind of muscle for out and out urban warfare.

    The period when the laws were relaxed — and the article makes this point explicitly — was concomitant with the Nazis' increasing influence as they took control of local politics and began to attract notice as a serious national party. It was only then that the violence escalated into widespread gun battles, rather than just targeted killings.

    In any case, this isn't about gun control. Who is fearmongering me over HR 1955? I just read about the legislation from ondelette, who asked some questions about it but actually seems to be more concerned with some email activist group, possibly connected to Ron Paul.

    After a glance at the legislation I didn't think much of it, but after a closer reading I decided I don't like it. I don't really care who says it's not an issue unless they can speak to my reasons for holding the view that I do. "This here other guy says you're wrong," doesn't cut it.

    Of course that goes both ways. If someone were to assert that the bill grants license to beat Muslims in the streets of America, I wouldn't agree — and I would privately conclude that they were an idiot.

    The way I see it the bill addresses an issue that doesn't exist — or rather, an issue that appears perfectly well-covered by existing systems. So I don't see the need for it, nobody defending it can explain the need, and the bill itself is using language that sounds like it's code for that "the Muslims are coming to get us!" right-wing trope.

    So to me all of that adds up to at best of a waste of time and at worst something undesirable. And yeah, I don't like that.