Letters: June 1, 2009
Is there a statute of limitations on our replies to letters? If there is, we ignore it in another exciting-yet-delayed update! Enjoy, and don't forget to write us now if you want an answer in the next seven months.
The People Have Spoken.
You need to start doing Yahoo! User Movie Review Reviews again. - Henry
Josh: Okay, this is the second recent letter we've gotten about this, which means we officially have to take it seriously. The only thing stopping us to date has been our uncertainty as to whether or not it's okay for us to reprint those reviews without explicit permission, but I think I smell a "fair use" invocation coming on. Stay tuned!
And Now, A Few Letters About Firearms.
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria.
Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California? - John Bates Thayer
Josh: Oh, I think I get it. It's like how abortions wouldn't be so controversial if you replaced "woman's right to terminate her fetus" with "woman's right to adopt a loving puppy".
Jerks: Their Treachery Knows No Bounds.
Twenty years ago jerks argued that the need for guns was only relevant back in the days when America was a wilderness, and is not relevant for today's urban areas. Now, these same jerks are arguing that guns are not appropriate in _wilderness_ areas! Jerks!
People need to be able to carry guns anyplace that police have not prevented a rape or robbery from going down, and also any place substantially similar to one of those places. - fsilber
Josh: Ooh, the idea of stopping rape in our national parks sounds good -- sign me up for that. A loving couple sharing a kiss in the woods...or a terrible rape in progress? Don't worry: my gun always decides fairly.
Fun With Statistics.
The National Park Service’s recent report revealed that 11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggravated assaults occurred on parklands in 2006. Our parks also contain hidden methamphetamine labs, marijuana fields and illegal drug and illegal alien smuggling routes. In addition to these dangers and potential attacks from human predators, park visitors have to consider attacks from animal predators. Between April and December 2007 there were at least a dozen grizzly bear attacks reported by park visitors. Today, 31 states allow the carrying of firearms in state parks – all with safe and satisfactory results. - Jason M. Rogers
Josh: In 2004, 81 people died every day from gunfire in the United States (linky). Funny thing, numbers.
