Letters To The Editor

LAW, JUSTICE AND GUNS

Amendment says what it says

Regarding the constitutional references that appear in D.F. Oliveria’s March 24 editorial on assault weapons, he is misinformed. I choose my words carefully. We deal here not with matters of opinion but of fact. The assault weapon ban may be a less than totally effective piece of legislation, but it does not do violence to the Second Amendment.

The Constitution does not refer to a “well-armed” militia, rather it specifies a “well-regulated militia.” Nor, I might add, does the Constitution associate the need for a militia with the security of a free people, but rather a free state - an important distinction.

I note further that the Constitution was written before the creation, in the late 19th century, of the National Guard. With the coming of the National Guard, one could argue that even the reference to a well-regulated militia has been overtaken by events. It was, after all, the rights of the states the framers sought to protect, not rights of the citizenry. I say that one could argue this. In fact, the Supreme Court did more; it handed down just this interpretation.

Having set aside the militia stuff, what does the Supreme Court say about the latitude to regulate? It has, several times over the years, effectively ruled that any gun control law - state or federal - that can reasonably be associated with public safety does not violate the Second Amendment.

I can only conclude that Oliveria hasn’t bothered to read the pertinent case law (a century’s worth). I suggest that he bears such a responsibility.

I’d hazard a guess that Ben Franklin would agree with me - speaking of the Constitution and what the framers were thinking about when they agreed to protect freedom of the press. Robert Herold Spokane

Weapons arguments lacking

D.F. Oliveria’s March 24 editorial was a classic, and I must commend him for the way he deftly made use of capitalization and exclamation marks to distract the reader from the real issues involved.

I submit that, beyond his unsubstantiated statement, he has no evidence to support the charge that Americans were “duped” about semiautomatic assault rifles. That charge is a bogus cop-out by the gun lobby.

These guns scare the American public because people know they’re the weapon of choice for most massacre situations, as with Dean Mellberg at Fairchild Air Force Base. That they’re slightly slower firing than machine guns may matter in combat but does not matter when a crowd of unarmed civilians is targeted.

False, too, is Oliveria’s suggestion the ban may weaken the Second Amendment. That amendment was never written to “create a militia.” These state-controlled military units have existed since the Revolutionary War.

To suggest the ban has caused the growth of the socalled militia movement is sophistry. This movement proves law-abiding gun owners actually are potential criminals. Oliveria would have called Mellberg law abiding before that first pull of the trigger.

If shotguns are used to kill more people than are assault weapons, that’s a good argument against shotguns - not for assault rifles.

Like other gun apologists, Oliveria gives no rational reason why private citizens should own assault weapons. His answer to violence that plagues us today is “more of the same.” Edward B. Keeley Spokane

Editorial repeats myth

D.F. Oliveria (editorial, March 24) repeats the myth that there is a constitutional right for an individual to keep and bear arms. This assertion is far from the truth.

The federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to keep and bear arms. If it did, then the Brady law and the ban on assault weapons and other gun laws would be overturned easily on constitutional grounds. The fact that they have not been overturned illustrates that D.F. Oliveria is guilty of passing along a false rumor. Walter A. Becker Pullman

Officer’s attitude out of line

After reading the article, “Brothers in Arms,” (March 23) I want to ask the people of Pullman why they put up with such insular, pompous attitudes as those of police Sgt. Chris Tennant.

He questions “whether it is appropriate for a citizen to use a weapon. …” What planet is he from? This is America. It is obvious that he and some other police officers feel they are the only ones competent to use and own weapons.

Why don’t you recognize this as a threat? Isn’t it your right to own a weapon?

Anyone who owns a weapon must have gotten it with the intention of using it. Maybe they are bothered by that. They shouldn’t be. It’s supposed to bother the no-account criminals who want to break into homes, rob, rape, murder, etc.

This officer stated, “Someone could have been seriously injured or killed.” Was he concerned for the welfare of the victim or the criminal?

If this dominant posture of the local police persists, I think we need more citizen-oriented checks and balances to keep big brother in his place - that of a public employee. He’s nothing more or less than a citizen with a job. If they think the badge puts them above anyone else, they have another think coming.

I say, atta boy, Tait Swanson! Bill Roe Spokane

IN WASHINGTON STATE

Custody case points up dilemma

I am horrified about the mildly retarded woman who lost custody of her child because a judge feared for the child if left with her mother when proper services and resources to assist her with parenting aren’t available (Mar. 23).

Why aren’t they available? Who is responsible? Who can make these programs available?

I have a 17-year-old gifted learner who has borderline personality disorder. In the fourth grade, at an assembly, some big, official people - Child Protective Services - stood on the stage and told her if she didn’t like her home, she could go to a friend’s house and call CPS. She left that night and has been running away ever since.

I had to quit my jobs so I could learn about her, supervise her and chase her. In November of ‘93, she removed her braces from her teeth with pliers. My point is that I am a mom who has struggled with her daughter with no resources or services. I didn’t keep working to keep my social status. We had to sell our home and go bankrupt. This woman deserves a chance to raise her child.

I wonder what day care this baby will go to and who will be home after school to greet her. Are these adoptive parents going to drop one more child on society to raise? These kids have to learn survival skills and be able to defend themselves. Someone, please, help. Laurie McCullough Spokane

Greedy landlords oppose plan

On Feb. 11, I read The Spokesman-Review’s editorial by John Webster about a consolidated state office building. My curiosity was aroused.

In my studies in the past weeks, I found that Mr. Webster is right on target.

Landlords, who are now charging us inflated rents for state offices all over town, are fighting the proposal to consolidate these offices in one taxpayer-owned property. The bottom line is greed on the part of the landlords and we must not let them get away with their lies.

I’ve heard that the group Citizens for Cost Efficient Government was organized by the landlords to fight the state office building. In an age of downsizing and consolidation in private industry, state, city and federal governments must do the same.

Remember, government is “us,” and wouldn’t we rather own than rent and save millions in the bargain?

Call your public servants in Olympia and tell them you like the idea of owning the proposed state office facility and saving money. Tell them to cast a wary eye on the special interest predator/landlords who are trying to shoot this down. Bobbie Ochse Spokane

Senator was gracious to us

I am 11 years old and in the fifth grade at Riverside Elementary School. After reading your article about Sens. Bob Morton, R-Orient, and Jim West, R-Spokane (“Group calls senators rude,” March 24), I feel compelled to tell about my experience with Sen. Morton.

A few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to meet him at our state capitol. On Sunday, I went to his office in the Institutions Building. He was the only senator in the building at the time and welcomed our family with open arms, even though he was obviously catching up on his work.

After meeting with him and his wife, he told me that on Monday he would have a photographer take a picture of us. He was true to his promise and I now have many pictures of the two of us and my family. He also placed us before his lunch and took us down on the Senate floor. He showed us the workings of the floor, how the voting works and many more interesting things. My mom has many pictures of me sitting in his chair.

My experience with Sen. Morton was enjoyable and I found him to be a very enthusiastic and polite man, opposite of the man described in your article. Alex Hallenius Spokane

PEOPLE IN SOCIETY

Abortion rationale sad, futile

In the heartless, mindless, hopeless, Godless reality of E.P. Shields’ letter (March 26), abortion make perfect sense - as a means of crime prevention, no less. How sad.

E.P. and friends ruthlessly and guiltlessly opt for murdering rather than raising unplanned - therefore unwanted, therefore un-cared for - babies in the womb, sparing society the crimes they might commit. Last I heard, we don’t execute criminals until after they’ve actually committed a crime. Infants in the womb are guilty of nothing, yet undergo the ultimate act of violence when aborted.

Scary stuff, but what is really frightening is E.P.’s attitude of futility. E.P. bemoans a violent society filled with death, destruction, anger, and resentment, yet endorses violence as a means to prevent it. E.P. accepts no personal responsibility for her/his abortion, but blames the unwanted pregnancy on defective birth control, just as every criminal blames their acts on some seemingly inescapable or insurmountable circumstance.

If people loved themselves enough, they wouldn’t inflict pain on others or get into destructive and irresponsible relationships. If men and women would love one another with mutual respect and commitment, disposing of the product of their love would never be an issue. People like E.P. need to buy into the truth that love can prevail, instead of the lie that there is no hope.

If people would just do what they know is right, everyone could know the joys of a child’s and a God’s love. Otherwise, Satan wins. Steve Daley Spokane

Be fair to retarded parents

Our family has two good, mildly retarded, friends who lost their twins. It’s just plain ridiculous!

Both of them hold down jobs and live in a nice apartment. They often baby-sat my brother and sister, and they loved kids. The Lord blessed them with perfectly normal twins. The two of them were very happy. Then the law came and snatched their children. The authorities said these parents could not properly care for their children.

Think about this: Parents who beat and rape their children are constantly being allowed to keep their children. But a parent who is mildly retarded cannot.

I recently read about Angel Harper, who had her little girl snatched because the law says she can’t raise her properly. If your IQ is not normal, you can’t raise a child? They don’t even consider what her little girl will think.

Could any parent imagine how it would feel to lose their child and not be able to do anything about it? So they’re mentally retarded? God did give them a life. They have feelings and can feel love for their children, just like every other good parent. Tobias Luther Christopher Colville, Wash.

Schools no place for discrimination

I am writing in response to Nathan Mauger’s March 22 article (Our Generation, “Public schools are no place for Christian crusades.”) I understand his personal belief, but not allowing Christianity of any sort in schools is pure discrimination, nothing else.

Prayer is very important and if you take it out of a Christian’s life, that life means nothing. Taking away religious activity in public school is taking away three basic freedoms given to us by the Constitution: religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Christians are called to spread the Word of God. It is simply what God has told Christians to do since the beginning of time.

I have never met anyone who has ever suggested or thought about forcing Christianity on an atheist. As for someone who goes around with a Bible, that is merely human nature. All humans want to spread what has given them joy, and there is nothing that has given me more joy than knowing God.

For your sake, I ask you to please read a little bit of the Bible and really understand what you’re reading. It could change your life. Zane Torretta, age 11 Spokane

This book worth reading

Instead of contending with people like Nathan Mauger and all who feel like him (“Public schools no place for Christian crusades,” March 22), I’d like to recommend a book, “To Hell and Back,” by Maurice Rawlings, M.D. Dr. Rawlings has written the book from his experiences and viewpoint.

It should be a “must” for people facing life-decisions for their loved ones, mandatory reading for lawmakers and youths. It wouldn’t hurt the clergy to read it as well. They all should find it at least thought provoking.

Rawlings is an extremely well-informed writer. It’s perhaps one of the most fascinating books I have ever read and could be an important book for our age. Margaret Schuster Spokane

OTHER TOPICS

Pornography fosters abuse

It’s very disturbing but not surprising to hear that rental and sales of X-rated movies have increased in the last year. That trend only parallels, and is clearly indicative of, the degeneration of our society in its slide toward moral depravity.

As we see more and more cases of rape, sexual abuse, child molestation, teenage pregnancy and family disintegration, it epitomizes the problem of what pornography is all about. The pursuit of self-centered sexual gratification devoid of any moral values.

It’s a proven fact that people’s behavior is influenced by what they see. The message of pornography is that women and children are slabs of sexual flesh to be used for the sexual pleasure and profit of anyone strong enough to overcome them.

The myth that women are brain-dead sex objects is perpetuated in X-rated movies and pornographic magazines. Pornography destroys human dignity, respect and distorts the purpose of our human sexuality. It is obvious what an impact it has had on the younger generation.

I applaud the social responsibility of store owners who choose not to deal in pornography. I encourage people to patronize businesses that have made that sacrifice. This is truly a spiritual battle but, sadly enough, some have not the spirit to understand. Tom Nisbet Spokane

Keep square with reality of history

I am concerned about the standards developed by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the national agency funded by taxpayer dollars to develop history guidelines for teaching in public schools in this country. This is being currently reviewed by Congress.

The rewriting of history damages the nation’s welfare. There is no place for “politically correct” when reviewing the past. The past happened as it did and it made us who we are today. If we do the grave disservice of misinforming future generations about our past, then there will be repeats. No getting around it, history repeats itself.

It is better to be informed about the truth in order to make wise decisions for the future than to pretend our past was other than it was because we don’t like it that way. We need to learn from past mistakes. We need to be encouraged by long-dead heroes whose lives can still speak to us. How can we learn or be encouraged if we don’t know what or who they were?

“For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we … might have hope.” (Romans 15:4.) To take away our past is to take away our national identity. If our identity is taken away, so is our ability to govern ourselves. If we don’t know what was, then it may become what will be. That’s dangerous. Linda J. Reed Spokane

‘Waste’ - what corporations plan to do

“Oh, what a waste,” echoing Boise Cascade’s slogan of tax dollars and our national forests. “Taxpayers big losers in logging” (March 19) and “Log sales show taxpayers get short end of stick” (March 25) reveal that corporate welfare is flourishing in Congress.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate was to vote on an appropriations bill containing provisions that would usher in an era of lawlessness by suspending environmental laws and requiring the maximum “salvage” logging possible in our national forests.

“Those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Philosopher and poet Santayana’s warning is fitting as Congress decides the fate of our forests.

Remember the past. Remember the devastation of forests in New England, the Great Lakes region, and here in the Pacific Northwest. Stumps don’t lie. Forty-five years ago, President Roosevelt’s agriculture secretary, Henry Wallace, prophetically warned “that in the Northwest, understanding of the forest problems and the development of an aroused public opinion have been delayed mainly by the hired men of the forest industries who have been adroit in issuing misleading propaganda.”

Plum Creek, Boise Cascade, Potlatch and other corporations spend millions trying to convince you they are environmentally responsible. Then why are they and their Congressional defenders poised to rip into our national forests and environmental laws? To help the gyppo loggers and small mills?

The public must see that the emperor has no clothes before the public has no forests. Congress should cut corporate welfare, not massively cut our national forests.

Oh, what a waste. John Osborn Inland Empire Public Lands Council, Spokane