Online subscriber? Please Log In
  

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

Letters to the Editor - April 19, 2013

Apr 19, 2013 | 16 Comments


Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.

Comments

08:37 am - Fri, April 19 2013
happy slap said:
"Our tolerance is increasing"

Will two brothers engaged in an Gay (active sexua)l relationship, in what currently would be defined as an incestuios act be allowed to Marry once same sex marriage is allowed or codified into law?

If not, what would be the legal basis for denying those brothers their equal protections under any same sex marriage act? If neither is capable of becoming impregnated, what would the argument be? That most of us can't or won't accept that 'Lifestyle' because it's...well...just too plain-old-fashion deviant, just too darned pinchie-me-hoot-by-golly-gee-goin-straight-to-hell, sick-o ..or.. what?
08:49 am - Fri, April 19 2013
happy slap said:
One should really take look deeper into the details that may, or will be released upon the full opening of this Pandoras box
06:11 pm - Fri, April 19 2013
knowitall said:
Nortness, It was not a majority of Americans that enabled the GLBT to "marry". The people in the states that allowed the vote, including Oregon, voted it down. It was some Clinton appointee judge that overturned the will of the people. Other than that I would see no reason why bigamy might be okay, incestuous relations to marry or even one of each for everyone. Where does this insanity stop? Lastly, it is hard to believe you have been divorced 3 times. I would hope you would make better decisions.
06:14 pm - Fri, April 19 2013
knowitall said:
Les, don't you think it is a bit arrogant to think the United States has the power to change the climate? Even if I believed it is manmade I would protest first against China, India, Russia, England and other nations that have done almost nothing to stop the carnage against the environment. If those countries will do nothing to help we could outlaw the real source of environmental pollutions and this is volcanos. Personally, I am thankful for global warming periods of the past. If not for the warming of the planet millions of years ago we would be living on ice. I don't know who started that warming but I would surely like to thank them.
11:55 pm - Fri, April 19 2013
Seabiscuit said:
Part 1
With all due respect, I must disagree with Mr. Mason’s assessment of the October Term 2007 Heller decision and the 2nd Amendment. The only “radical claim” I have observed, is in your letter sir. It appears very obvious that you have deliberately misquoted, reorganized and distorted Scalia’s narrative to fit your own purpose.

Your assertion: “The court used Heller to clarify that “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” Justice Scalia, writing for the court, goes on to explain that this individual right has limits. The Second Amendment does not confer “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”” will not to be found in this context anywhere in the decision. You have taken different quotes from two different sections of the decision and combined them in you attempt to distort the decision.

Let’s break this down. Your quote from Paragraph 1 of the decision: “The court used Heller to clarify that “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

The correct quote: “1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.”
11:58 pm - Fri, April 19 2013
Seabiscuit said:
Part 2
A very important sub paragraph (f) of 1, which has direct bearing on your next quote is as follows: “(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpre¬tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.”

Your next sentence / quote is from Paragraph 2, skipping over and omitting six (6) subsections to get here: “Justice Scalia, writing for the court, goes on to explain that this individual right has limits. The Second Amendment does not confer “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The correct quote: “2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.” Please note the very important words “in common use at the time”.


12:22 am - Sat, April 20 2013
Seabiscuit said:
Part 3
Once again you forgot to complete the quote Mr. Mason, and in doing so you have deliberately changed the entire context. “Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” When the quote is complete it changes the entire meaning of your “abbreviated” quote. “3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
I would also submit that any attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles would also be further encumbered by the fact that the semi-automatic rifle is a very popular hunting rifle and recognized as a standard requirement in competition by the Federal Civilian Marksmanship Program. Excellence-In-Competition (EIC) Matches, CMP Games Events (Garand, Springfield, Carbine, Military Rifle) and other CMP-sanctioned competitions. Created by an Act of Congress, the CPRPFS derives its mission from public law (Title 36 USC, §40701-40733).

Just as a point of interest to your reference of "clips" the largest "clip" made only holds 10 rounds!
08:49 am - Sat, April 20 2013
Don Dix said:
Mr. Howsden wants to put the issue of climate change openly on the table.

How about we start with global warming wannabe god, Al Gore. Al said (in his slanted movie), "The Earth is warmer than it has ever been". And yet the Romans were able to grow grapes in England during their dominance. And as late as 1350, the southern region of Greenland was free of ice and had been farmed for 400 years. Question: How could this warming occur without man driving SUVs all over the place?

How does Al answer that? -- Simple -- He unequivocally states, "The debate is over" -- and thus avoiding the prospect of answering anything.

So all we need to begin an open discussion is the recording of that debate. Oops! It seems there was never any debate, Al just made that up. And making up facts has been about the only strength Al can claim (remember, he said he 'invented the internet').

Doesn't it seem odd that studies of ice core, tree rings, and ocean sediment tell a story much different than Al's? The fluctuation of temperatures has been occurring throughout the history of the Earth, and today is no different.

When someone states 'the climate is changing' they are correct. When they attempt to blame (or credit) man, proof must match up. And with all the evidence to the contrary, blind allegiance isn't a very strong position from which to argue.
04:43 am - Wed, April 24 2013
troy prouty said:
If you hold the belief that we are granted (in the U.S.), Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. (Basically the rights of Menm created from France and twisted to America style). Then you would seem to to acknowledge anything legal that doesn't affect someone else's "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" Many of the laws we have today are enforced or deemed legal on this basis. Ban on Gay Marriage is not one of them.

What happens is some people take their common belief and push it on others, in the real world the others can shrug it off and do their own thing, but when this happens in the poltical world (we can't) sadly, thus laws that really don't affect the majority affect the few in a negative way.

Wouldn't be great if we could get to a place where everyday citizens could vote via computer on issues that come up and based on those results, Our leaders (if you can call them that) could only respond to how and what the people actually want?

Personally I'm happy Washington passed the law.

troy*
05:20 am - Wed, April 24 2013
troy prouty said:
One other small point that I didn't address, but I think about is the arguement marriage is between a man and woman who can conceive a child.

I took this college class on this topic, they didn't take the life, liberty and pursuit approach. But I think it's interesting though to use it, because there are severfal facts that make this difficult to establish law. First of all not all people that get married (man and woman) can have children, so does that mean the marriage is void? Second is do we know in the future that two man can't have a child? where does it play in if a person hasd sex and a child out of marriage?

There were other additional things, but if I posted them I would be banned for life..

Another point is I remember when Gay Marriage failed in California people acted out in violent nature.. And people responded "I can't believe they would do that".. but what people tend to forget when people get oppressed, they get angry.. and they act out.

troy*
06:27 am - Wed, April 24 2013
happy slap said:
"There were other additional things, but if I posted them I would be banned for life."

Not everyone has the ability to view an abstraction from the same perspective, Troy.

07:22 am - Wed, April 24 2013
happy slap said:
Tibetan 'sky funeral's come to mind. A persons desire to leave this life and enter the next through an act of self-immolation would be another.

As recently as the year of our Lord, 1973, homosexuality was a mental illness. What has changed since that time. I would argue that what had actually changed, was a demographic shift that had occurred over the prior two to four decades, in whom was going to medical school to earn Ph Ds in the science of Psychiatry.

Just my opinion, not that my opinion matters.



08:04 am - Wed, April 24 2013
happy slap said:
What came first, the mental defectives, or the Psychiatrist that deems them not?

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see."

--Arthur Schopenhauer

Life will imitate art, and the genius that is Hollywood knows how to hit that target better than anyone.

Michael Tubbs Sr
Grand Ronde, Oregon
04:03 am - Thu, April 25 2013
troy prouty said:
posted "homosexuality was a mental illness"

I think they may have listed it a personality disorder, but I'm not sure. I think a lot has changed in psychology, but I also think that maybe at that timie period, people kept in a closet. The more people came out I think they changed their stand and changed criteria in bahavior, and certai characteristics still falls into those new persomality disorders.

troy*
07:37 am - Thu, April 25 2013
happy slap said:
Kinda like the 'saggy trousers' thingy, whereas once considered an unfashionable faux paux, not so much anymore, huh?
04:52 am - Fri, April 26 2013
troy prouty said:
yeah. However I've never hit the fashion thingy.. I'm always unfashionable.

troy*

© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS