Letters to the Editor
Mishima666
Published Letters: 125 Editor's Choice: 28
-
Definetly not the "free market."
[Read the article: Is Rush Limbaugh next?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Domini writes: "Sharpton's threats did NOT get Imus fired. Many millions of people who are ALSO a market called and wrote the advertisers, saying that they would not buy the advertisers' products if they did not drop the show. THAT did Imus in. . . . This was about market. Imus's market was small, the people who disliked him represented a larger market, and the corporations were not willing to lose sales to the much larger market of those who disliked Imus's comments."
A financial decision is not necessarily a market decision. Example:
You rent some retail space and open an atheist/freethinker bookstore. The local large fundamentalist Christian community dislikes your business. They threaten to boycott your landlord's other businesses if he continues to rent to you. As a result, the landlord refuses to rent to you any longer, and you go out of business. Your customers would like to buy from you, but they can't because you no longer have a store.
You would call that a free market result? Ridiculous. A situation such as that would have nothing to do with the free market. I suppose you could call that an example of "free speech," but only in the sense that the free speech of a large group was used as a tool of intimidation to shut down free speech of a small group.
All I'm saying is that we should be very clear about what is happening here. Let's not paint intimidation with the happy face of "free market" and "free speech." You may not like Imus. But it's Imus today, and tomorrow someone whom you do like.
-
Trust me, I'm from the government.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sitting_At_Home_Drinking_Coffee writes: "First and foremost, repealing the second amendment does not mean that people cannot own guns; it only means that they can be directly regulated."
Guns are already heavily regulated, both at the federal and state levels, even with the 2nd Amendment. Around the country there are literally thousands of laws dealing with guns and gun ownership.
But there is a huge difference between having a right to something, and having something granted to you through the good graces of the government. That to which you have a right cannot be easily or lightly taken from you by the government. That which is permitted to you by the government can be taken away at any time.
It's the difference between having free speech as a right vs. being permitted to speak under whatever conditions the State deems appropriate.
It seems to me that opponents of the 2nd Amendment have a tremendous confidence in the inclination of the State to act benevolently in their behalf. The Bill of Rights shows clearly that the founders did not share that confidence -- nor should we.
-
Like what?
[Read the article: The NRA view of school shootings, in pictures]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anu Singh writes: "Does that mean a complete ban? No, but like any other privilege (driving a car, par. ex.)it should be licensed and regulated...far more than it is today."
Between the states and the federal government firearms are already highly regulated, with thousands of laws already on the books. What specific new regulations would you like to see?
I can think of one change that I believe might be approved by both sides. I have a concealed handgun permit for the state in which I live. In order to get that, I had to take a class, pass an exam, get fingerprinted, pay a fee, and pass a criminal background check. But if I travel to another state, that permit is not valid. It's kind of like having a drivers license that is valid only in one state but not when you cross the border into another state.
I would like to see concealed carry legal in all states, with a uniform licensing process and permit that would be valid in all states. In exchange for that, I would favor much more training -- especially in the areas of gun safety, marksmanship, weapon retention, and the legal aspects of the use of lethal force in self-defense.
Such a system would satisfy those who want to carry a handgun for self-defense, while at the same time ensuring that those people would be highly trained in all aspects of handgun use. Of course, it wouldn't satisfy those on the extremes of the issue -- namely those who think that handguns should be banned, and those who think that concealed carry should be unregulated.
-
Just wait until we're gone.
[Read the article: America's dangerous trigger finger]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]mchaput writes: '"Softer" tactics and a lower threshold of violence' is certainly an interesting way of saying "not murdering innocent civilians."
Not at all. It has a meaning far beyond that. It has to do with how we deal with the civilian leadership, how neighborhood sweeps are conducted, how searches at checkpoints are done, who is taken into custody and who isn't, and so on. It has to do with decisions made by military commanders, such as not using heavy weapons and indirect fire in residential areas.
One thing to remember is that a common tactic of Muslim insurgents around the world is to try to provoke an over-response by the conventional forces.
Also, I think there's a tremendous hypocrisy at work among a number of the people that we're trying to protect. When people they don't like get tortured or beheaded or blown up, there's dancing in the streets. But then when U.S. soldiers inadvertently kill or injure the wrong people, well, we're the essence of evil. If they think we're evil, all I can say is just wait until we leave, and all these bloodthirsty followers of the religion of "peace" can murder each other without our interference. They ain't seen nothin' yet.