Navarrette column clouds gun issue
This is regarding Ruben Navarrette's March 21 column.
Navarrette obviously is picking sides as he attempts to defend his friend Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Throughout the column, he attempts to demean the integrity of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and her desire to have military assault weapons/high-capacity clips restricted from public use.
The latest polls agree with Feinstein at more than 60 percent in favor of this weapons/ammunition ban. Navarrette writes, "Who says she gets to decide who gets to own a gun or how many stay on the market?"
Again, Navarrette uses "gun" as the hot-button word. Feinstein understands the Second Amendment and only wants to limit military assault weapons to the purpose for which they were developed/created. Also, the House, the Senate and our president will determine if a bill is accepted and passed into law.
Navarrette has expressed himself under freedom of speech; however, much of his arguments counter reality, cloud the main issue of assault weapons, use hyperbole to distract, and all the while refuse to even admit to the will of the majority.
The Constitution allows for us to bear arms and our present-day militia is our local police, National Guard and the four branches of our military.
For Navarrette to quote (half-term Gov.) Sarah Palin does not bode well for his intellectual treatise on this subject.
Argument emotional on all sides of issue
I am responding to the opinion piece in which Ruben Navarrette comments on the exchange in the Senate between Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Ted Cruz.
Navarrette takes Feinstein to task for "abandoning reason for emotion." He takes liberals to task for their interpretation of the Constitution. And he maintains that Feinstein should not attempt to argue the Constitution with Cruz, who is a lawyer and has argued the Constitution before the Supreme Court.
What he attempts to gloss over is that both sides are emotional about the issue of gun control and interpret the Constitution in ways that serve their arguments.
The Supreme Court itself differs in its interpretations of the Constitution, so why should Cruz's interpretation hold more sway than that of Feinstein, who has been defending the Constitution according to her lights for 20 years?
The pettiness of Navarrette's piece merely continues the distracting behavior that keeps us from really working out our society's problems.
Battle was slaughter of Native Americans
The super quiz is fun. The March 19 quiz had a minor error. The muffin man does not live "on" but rather "in" Drury Lane.
There is a more serious issue with the March 14 quiz, the subject of which is famous battles. Included are Waterloo, Gettysburg, Dien Bien Phu and also Wounded Knee.
This is an odd juxtaposition. At Wounded Knee, the 7th Cavalry, which presumably recalled the humiliation of the Little Big Horn, surrounded a huddled mass of Native Americans and massacred them. There were some casualties among the soldiers from friendly fire, as it is not a good idea to form a circle and shoot.
This was not a battle, however, which by definition requires two sides. If I were to describe Babi Yar as a battle, it would be similarly offensive.
Let us try to be more sensitive to the Native American Holocaust.
David I. Kelvin
Free press put in historical context
This is regarding Marion A. McIntire's letter published in the Times on March 20.
I don't believe the authors of the First Amendment of the Constitution intended the right of a free press to apply to the technology available today. How could they? The technology we have today was unimaginable then.
When we acknowledge the First Amendment can apply only to the technology available at the time it was written, then we can begin to solve the problems created by the technology and propaganda we have today.
I don't see a constitutional right to a free press other than use of a Gutenberg printing press and a town crier. You couldn't get away with propagandizing or indoctrinating 340 million citizens with either one of those technologies.
Patrick J. McNamara