2/13/2013 11:59:00 AM Letter: Response to last week's letters
Every week, one of the first things I look for is the Letters section. It's interesting to me finding out what my fellow residents feel strongly enough to write in about, even if they don't strike a responsive cord in me. This week, though, I just have to respond!
First, a quote. "Scratch a conservative and you'll find someone who prefers the past to any possible future. Scratch a liberal and you'll find a closet aristocrat." Leto II Atreides: The Stolen Chronicles
I'd like to agree with Curtis Allen that the Second Amendment has no gray areas, but then in the middle of his letter he starts offering up exceptions!
"No one endorses..." Bear in mind that the privately owned artillery pieces and bulk gun power of the revolutionary war period qualified as WMDs for that era. The key words are "keep and bear" meaning "own and carry," "arms" an unrestricted reference to any type of weapon, and "shall not be infringed" which, I submit, every single one of the 20,000 plus anti-gun laws currently on the books, at all levels of government, violates!
Donald Huard has missed the point that every single appointment to the Supreme Court has been politically motivated, and thus even laws that "the Supremes" give the nod too can still be unconstitutional. Otherwise, please explain to me such travesties as "Dred Scott."
Ray Newton, in his letter about SANE legislation has obviously forgotten (or never cared enough to learn) that the titles lawmakers give their bills are almost invariably designed to mislead their fellow congress critters as to what is actually in the bill, while relying on the fact that so many bills are proposed every session that no one can possibly read the whole thing before the vote comes up! Anything that sounds as good as he makes this out to be has to be too good to be true. Forget the name they give it and read the fine print.
Finally, Cathy Severson makes a good point, but doesn't take it far enough. I'm personally of the opinion that every girl, at menarche, should receive a five-year implant. This would accomplish several things. 1. No unwanted "children having children" pregnancies. (If she marries young, the implant can be removed, at her option). 2. Since it's a one-time doctor visit, the girl doesn't have the daily (or every three months, or whatever) reminder that she doesn't have to "worry about it." 3. Since they offer no immunity to STDs, some form of "safe sex" or "abstinence" education is still needed. 4. By the time the first implant is ready to be removed, she's old enough to to make intelligent choices about her own body. I call this responsible parenting!
And, yes, I did. I raised two daughters. One is now 29, married with one child, and the other is 27, still single, with no children. And neither of them ever had a problem with STDs, although a number of their classmates, in both middle and high school, did have unwanted pregnancies, STD's or both.