Email letters, January 24, 2013
Law limiting number of rounds would lack common sense
Someone in the Jan. 13 “You Said It” column said that most conservation agencies “limit hunters to five rounds for rifles and three rounds for shotguns to ensure ethical (sic) and sportsmanship in hunting.” The writer then asked, “Don’t people deserve the same consideration?” This is a great question.
It’s obvious that murderers who hunt people lack the ethics and sportsmanship of giving their victims any consideration at all. Therefore, these people-hunting murderers will not limit themselves to five rounds, regardless of how many laws are passed.
So, when a law-ignoring murderer with unlimited rounds starts shooting people, don’t people deserve the same amount of rounds with which to defend themselves and others? It is not only inconsiderate to limit how many rounds people have, it is unwise, and, unless I’m misunderstanding “infringed,” it is also unconstitutional.
I’m all for common-sense gun laws. But any law that limits how many rounds with which I am allowed to protect my family from a madman with unlimited rounds is actually the antithesis of a common-sense law.
Any law that prohibits law-abiding people from carrying firearms at all, thus creating safe zones for murderers by providing unarmed victims that can now be killed in greater numbers without endangering the murderer, is not a common-sense law.
Don’t be fooled by a bad bill with a good title. Look beyond the title and use your head for something more than keeping your ears from flapping together. Our lawmakers are not infallible. They are human just like us (except for their obscene salaries), so we shouldn’t be surprised that the law they most often pass is the law of unintended consequences. It’s up to us to use logic because our lawmakers are busy with more important matters.
Nazi regime did indeed restrict Jews’ access to weapons
I probably won’t use any of those twenty-five cent words as Andy Hutmacher (apoplectic, modicum, etc.), but I’ll give it a try.
He stated that the argument “that any hint of gun control is reminiscent of Hitler, who, not unlike certain persons in our government, they say, wanted to take away all firearms” is fraudulent and unsubstantiated.
I submit that his statement is fraudulent, meaning intended to deceive. Let me explain. As he knows, law is more than the words written. It is also the intent and spirit that are important. Hitler was not a supporter of the general population having guns, which is clear. See Hitler’s table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, second edition (1973), page 425-426, Cameron & Stevens translators.
Registration was a centerpiece of the 1938 law. It makes it easy for a government intent on tyranny to confiscate firearms. Not quite eight months after the German Weapons Law of 1938, Hitler met with Goebbels and other favorite confidants to plan the infamous Kristallnacht attacks on Berlin Jews.
One day after those bloody attacks, the German government issued a “gun control” law regulating the possession of weapons by Jews. Included in those regulations are these items:
1. Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.
2. Firearms and ammunition found in the possession of Jews will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
3. Negligent or willful violations will be punished by fine and imprisonment.
4. For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.
Soon after, it was shortened to simply: Anyone not approved by the Nazi party will be shot on the spot if found in possession of a firearm or any amount of ammunition. These or similar regulations were posted immediately after the German army occupied any village, town or city anywhere in Europe, not just in the homeland.
We know how this worked out for millions of Jews. The lesson is: registration, confiscation, imprisonment or death. Simple.
Hutmacher made the statement that the law of 1938 was “thus supporting and encouraging gun ownership, as opposed to restricting it.” Those are the words of the law. Anyone who is intellectually honest can see the intent, spirit and result of the law was much different.
Hutmacher also stated, parenthetically, that under Hitler, even Jews could own guns. For a brief time, yes. But for a much longer time, NO! Absolutely not!
Hutmacher’s intent was clear. He attempted to deceive readers into believing that guns control laws enacted in Germany were for the benefit of gun owners and users.
The implication was that the same is the case in the United States today. In that we agree. The intent and spirit of today’s proposed gun controls are the same as they were in Hitler’s Germany.
Hutmacher should open his eyes and recognize the truth.
Dang, no twenty-five cent words!
Republicans’ simplistic approach to complex issues results in bad policy
Thanks to local Republican apologist Josh Penry (“I-70 is an example of the sort of grand projects we no longer build,” Jan. 4) and self-styled “conservative” hector Dave Kearsley (“Bill Grant among academic elite,” Jan. 23) for reminding Sentinel readers why Republicans’ simplistic approach to complex problems leads to bad policy.
Kearsley established his dubious bona fides by insisting in early 2009 that the stock market’s predictably negative reaction to the financial crisis reflected investors’ lack of confidence in President Obama’s ability to deal with it. Since then, Dave has never admitted the converse – the stock market recovery confirms that Obama, Geithner, Bernanke, et al, knew what they were doing (despite incessant Republican obstructionism).
“Personally, I [also] like people who cut to the chase.” Thus, as Josh implied and Dave flatly stated, “this country has a spending problem” – we are not spending enough now, when borrowing at negative interest rates to make productive investments is sensible.
In fact, according to genuinely credentialed economists (and well-informed “academics” such as Grant), we are not spending enough on food stamps, unemployment benefits, alternative energy, and infrastructure projects (see Josh’s I-70 lament). According to Republicans, we are also not spending enough on school safety and diplomatic security.
Contrary to Kearsley’s disingenuous mischaracterization, Obama has never said that “we don’t have a spending problem.” Rather, he has consistently acknowledged that our burgeoning national debt arises from both excessive spending (on misguided wars, for example) and from irresponsibly but deliberately diminished revenues.
Ample additional revenues for a “balanced approach” are available through tax reform, from reinstating the financial transaction tax, from “cap and tax” (a Republican idea), and/or from responsible consolidation of our massive post-9/11 “military-intelligence complex.”
“It’s that simple” – and Republicans “better figure that out” before they threaten to tank the economy again.