Letters to the Editor
Tyler_Mason
Published Letters: 490 Editor's Choice: 41
-
"I don't feel safe in an armed society."
[Read the article: Supreme Court strikes down D.C. gun ban]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't feel safe in a society where anyone larger, stronger, or tougher than myself can close their hand in a fist. This is clearly a case where security must trump liberty - fist making must be outlawed.
Sure, there's a first amendment issue. You know, the raised fist symbol of black power. It always scared me. Outlaw it. A closed fist is both hate speech and a deadly weapon.
A civilized progressive society has no need for fists.
Well, maybe in the privacy of ones own home it's OK. Maybe, in correlation with "free speech zones" we can establish "fisting zones". Away from schools, churches, public buildings, and roadways of course.
-
@violetclementine - how dumb
[Read the article: Supreme Court strikes down D.C. gun ban]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]newly legal crossfire? Where the hell did that come from?
Legally owning a gun doesn't make it legal to shoot at people. That's like saying having a dick makes it OK to rape.
-
@Silenced
[Read the article: Supreme Court gun ruling could backfire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]pot, meet kettle.
You of all people shouldn't rag on jane. It isn't that she made an inane post revealing contempt for other people. It's that you do the same:
"The NRA is being stupid. Most of their members support and enable the War on Drugs."
"Go tell that to the NRA. Like they're going to get the clue. NOT."
I'm an NRA life member and an NRA certified training instructor. I know a lot of NRA members. We reconciled the war on terror and the war on drugs issues years ago. They were wedge issues within the community and resulted in many broken and strained friendships. Most of us avoid those issues at NRA events. After all, the NRA contains atheists, priests, cops, and anarchists. The only thing we agree on is that we want to own and use guns.
Even more interestingly, the NRA has joined in defending the first and fourth amendments as well as the second. The first is defended because we want to remain able to scream when our rights are trampled or threatened. The fourth because even the bush regime is not shy about seizing guns from law abiding citizens.
-
@silenced
[Read the article: Supreme Court gun ruling could backfire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You claim: "... countries with strict gun-control laws seem pretty free and democratic and yes, relatively crime free to me."
Are you talking about China and the UK? You're using a truthiness argument. Check the facts. You'll discover that we're actually a relatively non violent country (internally). If you want to feel super safe, move to Singapore. It's a wonderful place if you are comfortable within the mandated bounds. If you want more freedom, the US is actually a pretty safe place to live.
The real issue with security in the US is that we're constantly being told to get our fear on. Fear of terrorists, fear of druggies, fear of pedophiles, fear of zoning variances, fear of our neighbors. If we're afraid enough, we'll welcome a tyrant promising safety and security.
Ah well, I tend to trust people and believe that most people are good. I'm not afraid of them. I want to meet them, talk to them, and learn something. I trust most people to be responsible with dangerous things like cars, guns, etc. I don't trust children to be responsible, but that is why we nurture them.
-
oops
[Read the article: Supreme Court gun ruling could backfire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]oops, my last post was meant for Canuckistan Bob
-
weak article
[Read the article: We are family]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The phrase: "he doesn't provide compelling evidence for his declaration that humans are biologically unique, somehow a quantum leap removed from other life forms." put me on alert. "Quantum leap" has two definitions, one for scientists and one for laymen. The laymen, it means something really big and significant. To most decent scientists, it mean the smallest possible change of state. Burton used the phrase without quotes indicating that it is his phrasing, not Gazziniga's.
At this point, Burton's scientific credibility becomes questionable. There are many political aparatchiks who have reached high status positions.
Later he writes that Gazzaniga: "... should realize how making a categorical case for human uniqueness can lead to disastrous religious beliefs and scientific policy positions."
In other words, don't assert a scientific conclusion if the the political implications are unsavory.
Case closed. Burton appears far more politician than scientist. That's standard for someone who has reached his station.
-
it shouldn't matter for some jobs
[Read the article: Quote of the day: Backlash U.K.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The clear answer is to make the costs of child bearing and rearing, from the employers perspective, the same regardless of employee gender. Without doing that, the argument devolves into a denial of the employees role - to be cash positive on the balance sheet.
Also, some women I know will tell the hiring manager if they can't or won't have children. They give the info 'cause it can't be requested. The trick is saying it without it sounding like a sexual advance. When a candidate offers me that info, her rating goes up a notch or two. She's straight forward, proactive, and understands at least something about the business side of doing business.
-
@mc et al
[Read the article: Obama bites the bullet on FISA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The best bill we could have hoped for was no bill at all. We didn't need any negotiated compromise. We needed no bill at all. We needed lots of NO votes. Period.
I really wanted to vote for obama. Oh well. I remember another guy that was going to be a "uniter, not a divider". What a train wreck he turned out to be. 'Ol barrack can't wait for his first signing statement and his first dose of torture porn aka daily briefing.
I guess I'll "throw away my vote" again this year. Maybe Nader, maybe a green or libertarian. If more people did the same, maybe we'd actually get some of that promised change.
I really don't care which of mccain or obama ends up in the white house. Same difference. Sure, the democrat mouth pieces are saying that mccain would be bush's third term. Like obama wouldn't be? Meet the new boss ...