Letters to the Editor
DurianJoe
Published Letters: 1315 Editor's Choice: 69
-
Xanthro, the Supreme Court disagrees with your analysis.
[Read the article: Condors vs. the NRA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While you argue your point well, legal precedent argues otherwise. Taken from that handy tube system known as the Internets:
U.S. v. Miller (1939). In that case, Arkansas bootlegger Jack Miller was indicted for violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 by carrying a sawed-off shotgun across state lines. Miller argued that the case against him should be dismissed because the Second Amendment protected his right to own and carry the weapon.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Miller, saying that his shotgun had no "reasonable relationship to the preservation ... of a well-regulated militia" and was thus not protected by the Second Amendment. The Court also noted that the shotgun was "not part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Of course, this Salon article is about whether the nimrod network is so stubborn that it would rather see wildlife poisoned with lead than have a regulation forcing them to shoot with an alternative pellet. Personally, I don't expect much from men who shoot defenseless animals for fun.
-
The Supreme Court considered the 2nd amendment in the context of a militia, Xanthro.
[Read the article: Condors vs. the NRA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Miller case supports the view that the 2nd amendment refers to arms kept as part of a well regulated militia, and in that view allows for the regulation of firearms, i.e., gun control.
You are right that I have a dim view of hunting, but the issue of hunting is separate from the issue of gun control, so my bias regarding hunting is irrelevant. For what it's worth, personally I feel that all citizens should be allowed to possess rifles, shotguns, and other firearms which cannot be easily concealed. I favor very strong regulation of handguns.
-
It's all about perspective, Slowshooter.
[Read the article: Condors vs. the NRA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wrote that hunters are under attack by the "antis," people like myself who oppose hunting. From my perspective, animals are under literal attack from hunters. I side with the animals.
You speak of hunting being under legislative assault, but the Sportsmen's Caucus in Congress and state governments dwarf the animal advocacy groups represented by those bodies.
I do not want to see hunting outlawed. I want to see people voluntarily give up killing animals as their form of recreation.
With regard to replacing lead shot, if the NRA and hunters oppose that kind of reasonable regulation with "slippery slope" arguments, it is hard to see them as anything but irrational and stubborn beyond reason.
-
Silenced
[Read the article: Condors vs. the NRA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say that you want hunting to continue so that humans can retain those skills if necessary in the future. First off, if some cataclysm does occur which destroys the modern system of farming and food production, there likely won't be anyone left to hunt or anything left to hunt. Secondly, there have been vegetarians since at least the time of Pythagoras in 600 B.C. Hunting may be many things, but it is not necessary for human existence.
I'd rather see people retain the skills necessary to grow their own foods, rather than leave that skill in the hands of large, environmentally destructive agrabusinesses. Farming has been one of the keys to advanced civilizations. Don't forget, the ability to raise crops includes the ability to grow marijuana -- something I know you care about deeply.
-
Blue cowgirls and jet boys
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton: Nope, still not gay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fetboy, you missed the big one that will likely happen: when the Dems win, meet your new Secretary of State, Joe Biden.
Is it too much to wish for Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary?
Anyway, if Hillary's not putting Tucker Carlson's balls in a meatgrinder, then obviously she's a lesbian. No woman, especially no Democratic woman, could rise to power and not be a lesbian. Just look at Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi: married to men, with children. They must be lesbians.
On the other hand, look at Condi Rice: single, no kids, but a Republican, so she must be, er...
I'd include Ann Coulter among the list of single Republican women without kids who must be, er...but the jury is still out on whether the answer would be "lesbian" or "gay man."
Anyway, remarkable conversation going on here. Is AKASmith a lesbian? Hmmm, I dunno. I suppose the answer might be yes if that particular cowgirl gets the blues. As for you, I figured your name was a take-off on Elton Motello's "Jet Boy Jet Girl," but since you're a 30-something Goth and not a 40-something ex-punk like me, you probably don't know that song. Be careful of staying goth for too much longer, though, or you'll end up like a David Lynch character.
-
Too bad Burma doesn't have oil.
[Read the article: The barefoot art of war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Burma had oil, freedom might be marching there, heh heh.
This morning NPR reported that the junta forces have grabbed and removed thousands of the monks. Where they are now, and what is happening to them, is not that hard to imagine.
Funny how the civilized world can stand by and let this happen again and again and again.
-
Note to the Blackwater brownshirts
[Read the article: Oversight is for wimps]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Blackwater, your thugs get paid with U.S. taxpayer dollars. You work for us, not the other way around, and if you can't do your job properly, find another employer.
Note to Congress: what the hell are you people waiting for? What will it take for you to realize that we are slipping into fascism? Who runs the show, you or those mercenary thugs?
-
When will it end?
[Read the article: Stopping the hands of time]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The more these hyperself-conscious celebrities push the limits of plastic surgery in the pursuit of a youthful facade, the more they make culturally acceptable the natural process of aging. It's like the GOP swinging so far to the right that the political middle ground is now considered hard conservative.
There is nothing wrong with looking old. The problems of aging are not external, but internal. Can you walk? Can you hold your hands steady? Can you see? Do your organs function properly? Those are the things to worry about.
I imagine a scenario a few decades from now where Madonna looks like a smooth, pink 20 year-old, but she has to use a walker and wear diapers. It will be like a horror movie.