Letters to the Editor
ATSJer
Published Letters: 25
-
Repeal the 2nd Amendment....hmmm
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And what would this do? Well lets see, law abiding gun owners who each own guns that are properly and legally registered would be forced to turn in their firearms. Ok, now what to do about the hundreds of thousands of illegal firearms that are owned by those who routinely use them to break the law? I guess their conscience will be pricked and they out of their intense desire to conform to the letter of the law and out of the good-ness of their own heart they will turn in their firearms, you know those firearms that they have filed the serial numbers off from.
Yeah, while I'm not an NRA member I am a firearms owner, and to take away my right to own a shotgun that is used for hunting purposes, will only leave firearms in the hands of those who use them to break the law.
Maybe the smarter idea would be to address the root causes that drive people to use guns in destructive ways, but no its much easier to pretend that making something against the law will eliminate the problem just like laws against drunk driving have eliminated the number of accidents caused by drunk drivers, and just like the war on drugs has eliminated the drug trafficing in America. oops, maybe those didn't work, so maybe the answer lays somewhere else.
p.s. I own a gun and guess how many laws I've broken with it? Hint, the answer is less than 1.
-
Repealing the 2nd Amendment is a pipe dream
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Guns ain't goin' anywhere, they bring in too much money into the economy; jobs, sales, hunting equipment, hunting licenses, etc. Not to mention that hunting thins herds and reduces over population of species.
-
Responding to a rambling...
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Stupid me! it wasn't blood for oil, it was just blood. Current population -- 6 billion. Population when the 2nd amendment was written -- less than 1 billion. Just wait till it goes to 9, there are already 1 billion without enough water. Then the herd will really need to be thinned."
What the heck are you talking about?! I'm talking about hunting and thinning of herds that leads to stronger herds and more vegetation per animal as opposed to over population due to lack of a predatory species, and you're talking about water and human population? Seems that some might need to stay on topic.
BTW, I like how you went after the "thinning of the herd" bit and completely disregarded the emphasis of my post, in that the firearm industry in America is too big of an economic contributor to eliminate. I guess ignoring an argument makes it go away eh?
-
One purpose for guns...really? Maybe not so much.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's been said before, and I'll say it again:
1. Guns have one purpose: to kill.
Really? Hmmm, funny because I know many sport shooters that don't hunt with their guns instead they skeet shoot and target shoot because it is fun and a good hobby. Maybe guns really do have more than one purpose. Here's a hint, don't proclaim something that is unsubstantiated and false and expect everyone to believe just because you say so, lest you be confused with some other idealogs.
-
No worries
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whoa, whoa, whoa. I didn't ignore anything, and wasn't criticizing you. I just had a lightbulb go off when you mentioned thinning the herds. Guns thin the human herd too, and it is way overpopulated, has way too little vegetation per animal, and lacks control by a predatory species.
I totally agree that guns have too much corporate behind them to just go away. Sorry to offend.
Ok, no worries. I'm just way to used to out of context and off the point arguments that pose as logic.
-
Maybe its not just the Politicians making decisions
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]which appears to single out a certain type of rare late-term procedure known as "intact dilation and evacuation," and which is opposed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Hmmm, sounds like some Dr's to me, but then its easier to maintain certain positions to say that its politicians making decisions about a woman's body.
-
A welcome parasite??
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So long as the fetus cannot sustain itself outside the womb, it is essentially a welcome parasite.
Hmmm, interesting thought, wrong yet at the same time interesting. Here's another interesting thought; my son and daughter immediately after they were born (37, and 38 weeks respectively) were not able to sustain life on their own (no child can), in reality if they were left to sustain life on their own they would have died, I guess they were just welcome parasites as they held on to my finger. Just like YOU were a welcome parasite.
So keep your heads in the sand and ignore the fact that late term abortions kill a child.
-
even more on "Welcome parasite"
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ATSJer, a newborn baby needs the care of another to sustain life. A toddler needs the care of another to sustain life. A severely mentally-disabled adult needs the care of another to sustain life. A very weak elderly person needs the care of another to sustain life.
The difference between all of these people and a fetus, an embryo or an "unborn baby," is that any of the people above could live and thrive so long as someone takes care of them. In the case of the fetus, embryo or "unborn baby," it can only be sustained by the woman's own nutrients, the woman's own body. She can't drop it off at the sitter or daycare center.
Hence the term "welcome parasite." It's a description with some merit, but more than anything I think it just inflames passions and alienates people. It also doesn't adequately take into account that this "welcome parasite" can mean a lot to a lot of people because of what it has the potential to become.
Take the baby from the womb that is about to be aborted via this proceedure and give it the same attention that the child born naturally receives and see what happens. The problem with this proceedure is that it is "Late Term" (3rd Trimester) when most baby's survival rate is at its highest. Not to mention most babies survive when given a chance throughout the 3rd trimester.