Letters to the Editor

Jun 5, 2022 | Articles, Issue 1159

Special to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

Send Letters to [email protected]
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the “From:” header! Please indicate a subject. Otherwise you risk the editor picking a subject completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Letter from Stephan Jerde

Just so I’m clear, I do think reason is applicable. I do think the universe is rational.

I give the theosophists only a couple paragraphs to explain how their theology applies to liberty. I’m only here for the liberty, not for the God talk. If the author can’t pique my interest by then, it’s off to the next article or a different website.

Most of the time, theology discussion only impacts freedom tangentially, if at all, and I’ve wasted a few minutes of my life. So I support your decision, but largely because there are much better sites covering theology.

Stephan Jerde
[email protected]

Editorial comment: Since we have a change of editor, I’d like to let this discussion go. See this issue’s Editor’s Notes.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

 

Letter from Albert Perez

The following was posted on Facebook after being posted as a reply to an Email message from an anti-gun group.

The following is addressed to the leaders of the gun control movement:

  • I disagree with many if not all your proposals.
  • Many gun control proposals do something different than those proposing them say they will. Sometimes this is accidental, sometimes this is deliberate misrepresentation.
  • Do something now often works out to do the wrong thing now.

 

I forward this to TLE to include the observation that it is common for the left to say they are trying to do one thing, usually something almost everyone agrees is a good thing, then passing laws/adopting policies that are a hell of a lot less benevolent. They may even be malevolent. This applies to issues other than controlling the criminal misuse of firearms, which liberals/progressives seem hellbent to achieve by disarming honest people.

Albert Perez
[email protected]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

 

Letter from Albert Perez

Example of a non gun person writing article. Back before the pandemic and ammo drought when ammo was cheap, I was going through 800 to 1000 rounds of ammo a month making sure I was at least more dangerous to the target than the exposed part of the backstop. Serious shooters go through that much at least once a week (which is why so many of them reload.) While I’ve never kept that much at a time, I know of serious target shooters and even recreational shooters to whom a stash of a couple of thousand rounds of ammunition is no big deal, well within their regular needs. Add this to shortages, such as the one we are just exiting, and irregularities in the ammo supply, and stashing “large amounts of ammunition” by honest, peaceful people is fairly common.

‘Feckless’ ammunition laws under scrutiny following Uvalde, other mass shootings (msn.com)

A shooter at a Las Vegas music festival, in 2017, who killed 59, had at least 1,600 rounds. A shooter at an elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, in 2012, who killed 27, had more than …

 

Albert Perez
[email protected]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type
S86as2xl6e

S86as2xl6e

Jean jean jelly bean, the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

0 Comments