Letters to the Editor

Aug 14, 2022 | Articles, Issue 1169

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 Albert Perez

Quandries

Two problems keep bothering me, or rather I should say one problem and two questions.

The first is, that except for short vignettes, i currently can’t write fiction worth “sour owl shit,” in the words of the late L. Neil Smith. I have one short story out there, and two or three in progress, but no response so far, So much for problem.

As for questions,

  1. Why is the gun control debate between the two extreme groups ( I consider myself part of the pro-gun group) with the anti-gun group driving and controlling the agenda, The fact is the majority of Americans want laws in place that respect their right to arm themselves for self-defense and sport (target shooting and hunting) while keeping guns out of the hands of violent madmen (and women) and criminals. This is why even as “shall issue” carry licensure instead of “may issue” becomes the law of the land and half the states adopt constitutional carry gun control advocates are able to advance their agenda every time there is a mass shooting.
  2. Is it possible to develop inexpensive tattoo inks that change color to indicate when a woman is ovulating? This would give women the power to control their bodies by being able to choose when they get pregnant, by knowing when to refrain or use contraceptives, or contrariwise, when to deliberately try to get pregnant. I suspect that many “pro-choice” and “pro-life” activists would oppose people using this technology, exposing their wish to control women’s lives rather than supporting women controlling their own lives.

There is meat for many stories (and at least one technological advance) here, Hopefully we will get people to realize that respecting, not restricting, each other’s freedom will provide best for our security and prosperity.

Albert Perez
Albert Perez <[email protected]>

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

 

Happy with this piece? Annoyed? Disagree? Speak your peace.
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

Letter from Roger Clark

Re: Quandries

Just a passing glance at any electoral map shows a few blue islands in an ocean of red. It is no great revelation that the proponents of gun control are to a very large degree residents of those blue islands. It is my thought that we are seeing accelerated effects of evolution, or more properly de-evolution in that population. Generation after generation city residents increasingly become dependent on the services and conveniences of the city and have lost the ability to rely on themselves to solve problems. This was apparent in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It is this dependence that leads to the opposition to gun ownership. Rather than seeing a gun as a tool that they can use it is regarded as the embodiment of the evil present in criminals. As a consequence they expect someone else to assume the burden of protecting them while remaining oblivious to the irony that those protectors do so with guns.

Roger Clark
Roger Clark <[email protected]>

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

 

Happy with this piece? Annoyed? Disagree? Speak your peace.
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

Letter from Albert Perez

Comments

As mentioned elsewhere: The Bruen decision did not recognize a right to carry weapons, as anti-gunners bemoaned and pro-gunners proclaimed. It guaranteed the right of persons not adjudicated non compos mentis or convicted of certain crimes who have passed safety classes and show a reasonable knowledge of their state’s gun and self-defense laws and passed a shooting test to get a license to carry a pistol in public.

In spite of the disdain for the 9th Amendment demonstrated by the Supreme Court in Dobbs, The right to self-defense is in fact guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment and extended over the states by the Supremacy Clause and 14th Amendment (At least that’s how a lawyer would argue it for those of you who despise the 14th Amendment.).

We should have stuck with Madison’s original version: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Biden is right, not everyone was allowed to own guns in Colonial America. Black people were not allowed to own guns without special licenses. Neither were Indians.

One wonders which people Mr. Biden wishes to oppress.

Albert Perez
Albert Perez <[email protected]></[email protected]>

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

 

Happy with this piece? Annoyed? Disagree? Speak your peace.
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

 

 

S86as2xl6e

S86as2xl6e

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

0 Comments