fb pixel

Log In

Reset Password

Letters to the editor

Vote was to ban ammo

I am writing in response to Walt Mooring's May 30 letter in which he claims that John Kerry's endorsement of Amendment No. 2619 is not a move to ban hunting ammunition. I disagree with Mr. Mooring due precisely to the wording of the amendment ' To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor. ' which leaves the door wide open for a wholesale ban on virtually all forms of hunting ammunition.

This is due to the fact that most of the commonly used hunting calibers are quite capable of penetrating body armor, especially at reasonably close range. This fact would allow most high-power calibers to be placed on a banned list.

Proponents will falsely argue that what they want to do is ban handgun ammunition that is capable of penetrating body armor. Using single shot hunting handguns that are chambered for high-power rifle calibers, the anti-gun fanatics will claim that these calibers should all be banned because they are capable of penetrating body armor and can be fired by handguns.

In essence, John Kerry did vote to ban hunting ammunition. ' Gaither B. Everett, Medford

Legislating equality

Jeff Cheek has shared his thoughts with us in The Liberal Legacy (May 30). In his letter he points out what he believes liberal presidents have given us. I, possessed with an alternate point of view, would like to suggest what they have taken from us: freedom to make our own choices in life.

Liberal Democrats have turned an independent electorate (at the beginning of the 20th century) into a nation of dependents. Benjamin Franklin said Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.

— Cheek should know that the government cannot give us anything that they haven't taken from us previously. We are currently saddling our posterity with a huge debt to pay the increasing Social Security and Medicare benefits of an expanding elderly society. We have become more dependent on federal and state governments to provide us a risk-free existence.

We embrace entitlements. We shirk responsibility for irresponsible behavior. Tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, fast-food establishments, etc., are to blame.

Liberals attempt to legislate equality. Libertarians and conservatives prefer freedom. So, it all depends on your point of view, doesn't it? ' Charles J. Wiesenfarth, Eagle Point

Anti-Semitic buffoonery

It can be amusing as well as appalling to watch Republican hit-men, carefully disguised as journalists, take on a serious subject. They're obviously out of their element, floundering logically and intellectually and gasping for sense ' and finally, resorting to name-calling.

Jonah Goldberg's May 28 column smearing Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) offers a near-perfect example. Goldberg, a zealous Zionist borrowed from the Wall Street Journal, jumps on Hollings for having said that Bush invaded Iraq to defend Israel and please American Jews, hoping to attract Jewish voters.

Whatever the truth of the matter ' and there's plenty of evidence for Hollings' view ' Goldberg isn't interested. He has a more important agenda: Hollings, it appears, is guilty of anti-Semitism.

Or is he? It turns out, after considerable backing and filling and thrashing about, that Judge Goldberg is unsure about pronouncing Hollings an anti-Semite. But if not an anti-Semite, he's certainly a buffoon.

So there you have it. Whether Bush's bloody adventure in Iraq might have something to do with Israel and American Jews is insignificant. What's important here is whether an American senator can publicly take such a view.

The answer? He can't. Not if he wants to keep his Senate seat. ' Isaac Walker, Ashland


Memorial Day afterthoughts:

John Kerry: decorated combat veteran.

George W. Bush: poseur.

Richard Cheney: different priorities. ' Harry Freiberg, Brookings