Letters, 11/22: Disarming not the answer
digg it!
Facebook
del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit
I read Steve Schukar’s letter Nov. 14 and must respond to his liberal Democrat point of view. Especially his point No. 8: “We won’t take away your hunting guns. If you need automatic assault weapons to kill a deer, you aren’t much of a hunter. The carnage at the mall in Omaha and other places has to end.”
1. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about self-protection and the ability to protect our other constitutional rights. Make no mistake, if the liberal Democrats have their way, we will not have even hunting guns available. Just ask the Canadians, the Australians or the British.
2. It also is illegal to own full-automatic assault weapons without paying an exorbitant yearly tax. Probably Schukar is referring to lookalike semiautomatic weapons that are no different in function than semiautomatic hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns. The shape of a gun does not make it any more (or less) inherently dangerous. (Full-automatic means one trigger pull, many shots, while semiautomatic means one trigger pull, one shot.)
3. Any sane person would agree about the shootings in the Omaha mall and other places. Schukar implies that the weapon used in the Omaha mall shootings was a full-automatic weapon — it was not. We need to solve the problem of insane people doing insane things. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
John A. Golden, Elmwood
Stand up to the auto unions
The same argument can be made for bailing out the car companies as was made for the initial plan. Look at how many industries and individuals will be affected if it does not happen, but I agree with Jim Raymond from Gering (letter, Nov. 16) when he talked about the sinful wages and benefits these workers get.
It’s time someone stood up to the unions. There are thousands of people out of work who would be thrilled for one of these jobs, and they would be happy to do so even at half that wage.
Maybe if the automakers had converted to more fuel efficient cars years ago like we’ve all been asking for, they wouldn’t be in this mess (that and those benefit packages).
And I’m not kidding myself that just because I voted Democrat and always have that there aren’t despicable Democrats who govern us. But we have to give Obama the chance he earned. I hope people give him some time and see what happens. We can always make a change in 2012.
Linda R. Lee, Lincoln
Cartoon is pathetic
I am disgusted by Neal Obermeyer’s editorial cartoon depicting a man accusing President-elect Barack Obama’s supporters of anti-Americanism (LJS, Nov. 14). In Obermeyer’s world, this man wears a “Not My President” T-shirt bearing a likeness of Obama.
For the past eight years as I drove Lincoln’s streets, I often saw cars stickered with the phrase “Not My President,” supporting the idea that President George W. Bush “stole” the 2000 election. Al Gore and John Kerry supporters seem to believe in a government of half the people, by half the people and for half the people.
In the days since the Nov. 4 election, I’ve had multiple meetings with fellow social and fiscal conservatives. Not once have I heard any of my friends and associates say anything remotely close to “Not My President” about Obama. On the contrary, everyone agreed that the Republicans deservedly got pasted in the voting booth, and they’re excited by the historic nature of this election. More importantly, several stated that we should pray for Obama because he is “my president,” and he needs our prayers and sacrifices at this critical time for our country.
Obermeyer’s vitriol directed toward people who respect laws and the outcome of elections and quietly pray that Obama will be a good president for our nation is neither relevant nor satirical. It’s pathetic.
Tim Brox, Lincoln
Post Your Comment
Standards and RulesYour posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
Take the Good with the Bad wrote on November 22, 2008 7:46 am:
Thank you for your good letter. "
Snicker wrote on November 22, 2008 8:38 am:
kate wrote on November 22, 2008 9:55 am:
MarkyMark wrote on November 22, 2008 10:34 am:
Besides, if they did, I would love to see the special interests like the NRA, just die on the vine. "
J wrote on November 22, 2008 11:10 am:
Hum wrote on November 22, 2008 12:27 pm:
state and clear back to the 1950's those union auto workers were paid
fabulous hrly wages, and benefits. The so-called "poor" who "grew up in
bad conditions" were making these wages, one by one bot the big beautiful
inner city homes forcing the more affluent to move further out, THEN they
let those beautiful homes go to rack & ruin complaining of their "poor"
plight with a couple cadillacs sitting outside their houses. A TV station would and still does, have a weekend of winter coats given to the
poor. But these union workers with the big wages would be right there
getting their familys' kids' free coats. And we that worked in banks,
insurance, offices of clerical work rode the buses to work for the small
non-union salaries. At least we could look in the mirror at ourselves.
We accepted the pay and raises we were given, we didn't DEMAND the pay
and benefits and perks that have driven these auto companys to near
bankruptcy. And now, yep, we little hourly paid people are suppose to
bail them out!!!! I've seen so many relatives 5th cousin removed from a GM worker, get GM discounts for new cars for years. I sure didn't get
any discount!!! Yet I'm suppose to help bail them out. I say let 'em
go under and see how the rest of us had to live for a change!!! "
Teach wrote on November 22, 2008 12:48 pm:
I would like to see all guns in homes with children have gun locks however. This would prevent needless tragedies from happening. When I was a child(That was some time ago too) I would have had my behind blistered if I even attempted to pick up the family rifle. Today we have forgotten(some not ALL) that we have a responsibility to teach young people that guns are not toys.
Our world is a different world from when we were children. Things are much more violent,and guns are simply too easy to obtain on the streets. As for Canada, Australia and British Islands, they have far less violence than we do, but of course these countries were not founded on the Gun.
Guns are there of course, illegally and they take those seriously.
Regulation, is not eliminating your right to own a gun, it is however to prevent tragedies from occurring. "
TWP wrote on November 22, 2008 1:10 pm:
Hop wrote on November 22, 2008 1:14 pm:
Unions have played a major role in making many of our industries and particularly the auto industry noncompetitive. They tie the hands of management to change and adapt as needed, protect low performing workers, and require outrageous wages for what are often unskilled or low skill labor. Federal employment laws have made many of the former Union protections obsolete. In other words, today Unions provide very little benefit to their members, besides crippling high wages to the employer, and protections for non-performing or low performing workers. Thus they are truely a drain on our economic well being. Because of this, Unions have seen their rolls steadily decline in the last several decades.
Now the Unions have switched the focus of their organizing operations from private balloting to publicly signed cards. They want the government, through the Employee Free Choice Act, to take away workers' right to VOTE. They want to take away employee's freedom to have a secret ballot and instead rely on a public card check campaign. Union activists contend that the Employee Free Choice Act would protect workers' freedom to freely choose to join a union. However, a workers' best defense against harassment and intimidation by either a union or an employer is a secret-ballot election in which neither knows how any individual worker voted.
The poorly named Employee Free Choice Act is wholly intended to prop up the obsolete Union system, and take away worker rights. "
Zoomie wrote on November 22, 2008 1:51 pm:
Second - the Employee Free Choice Act does NOT remove anyone's right to vote on anything! If employees prefer the current secret ballot to vote on unions, they get a secret ballot! But if most do NOT prefer that, democracy in action! Majority win! And before people trot out the canard that unions will pressure people to sign the cards, let's not forget currently corporations are pressuring (and in literally hundreds of instances yearly, illegally firing people) people to vote against a union. They often force employees to attent corporate view only meetings, where they are often lied to, often told a vote for a union will lose them all their jobs. And for 8years, the organization that was supposed to protect worker rights has been protecting corporations and their illegal behavior. Another point you don't hear too often...in the "secret ballot" preferred by corporations, you need only get a majority of votes, NOT a majority of employees. In the card system preferred by unions, you must get a majority of ALL employees to win. If people opt not to vote, its the same as a vote against the union! Additionally, the card ballot system can be administered by an independent outside agency if both union and corporation agree, and then neither side gets to see how people voted, only the results (a much fairer system even then the "secret" ballot system run by the corporation). "
JohnR wrote on November 22, 2008 2:00 pm:
Flip wrote on November 22, 2008 2:39 pm:
1. The Democratic party is not operative in Canada, Australia, or Britain. Do you really consider yourself privy to what run-of-the-mill Democrats are secretly thinking? Even when they tell you precisely the opposite? Do you think that millions of members of this nation's majority party are lying about what they believe to preserve some massive anti-gun conspiracy?
2. "Probably Schukar is referring to lookalike semiautomatic weapons that are no different in function than semiautomatic hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns."
Besides providing you with a springboard for a pre-packaged talking point, exactly why do you think that this is what Shukar was "probably" referring to. Once again it seems that you know what the man thinks better than he does.
3. Shukar implies nothing whatsoever about the gun that Hawkins used. The reference to automatic rifles was part of his "you aren't much of a hunter" crack that was completely self-contained. "
Regurgitating Talking Points wrote on November 22, 2008 2:53 pm:
And the statement that "Federal employment laws have made many of the former Union protections obsolete."....are you kidding me? UNIONS fought to get those laws that are on the books. Do you seriously think that workers shouldn't be protected by unions? Do you seriously think that giant corporations look out for the health, safety and well-being of their workers because they WANT to out of the goodness of their hearts?
Unions did NOT create this crisis. Greedy, backward thinking, CEOs who are in bed with Big Oil created this crisis. If you think WORKERS and UNIONS made the decisions to mainly produce giant SUV, fight improved CAFE standards and thumb their noses as those "silly little hybrids" you are living in a dream world.
The MAIN reason that big anti-labor doesn't like this legislation is that is stiffens penalties for those companies that actively pursue unfair labor practices during organizing drives that have become all-too-common during the weakening of labor laws since the Reagan era. "
Hey John wrote on November 22, 2008 4:13 pm:
John, can you tell me why you need a gun like an assault rifle or one that looks like one? Could it be a testosterone thing? Couldn't one that doesn't fall into that category work just as well for hunting or target shooting?
As for Canadian gun laws, you are mistaken. They don't have a "Second Amendment" like in America but Canadians can and do own and can purchase guns for hunting and sport shooting. Americans can also bring their guns into Canada for those purposes also. If the Canadians are at such a disadvantage with their gun laws, why is their gun related crime rate so much lower than in the US? "
Jeff wrote on November 22, 2008 4:40 pm:
to Tim - we have seen time and time again that it is a major strategy of Republicans to pose themselves as the true Americans, with superiority on patriotism, values etc. There was a clear attempt to attack Kerry for his Viet Nam Experiences and Barack Obama because he dared associate with those in our society that have experienced and seen more of the negative side of this countries policies. "
stignob wrote on November 22, 2008 4:40 pm:
South Carolina, Toyota in Alabama, and Saturn in Tennessee, just name a few non union auto makers. Make no mistake about if the unions continue to get their way the money the govt. gives them will be flushed down the drain and they will still falter. It's their achilles heel. "
Unions bad and good wrote on November 22, 2008 4:57 pm:
Unions can be bad too. Take the State of Nebraska they are a Union (I did not know this until recently) They have a pool called "A Layoff Pool" They hire from the layoff pool 1st, the internal employee pool second and the public last. Many people that seek employment with the state are not aware of this policy.
The reality is that Unions can be bad,and good. You have to watch them just like you would watch your politicians. "
Ken wrote on November 23, 2008 6:16 am:
BicycleMike wrote on November 23, 2008 7:11 am:
HR Pro wrote on November 23, 2008 3:17 pm:
'SHRM opposes the Employee Free Choice Act because it would take away the right of employees to a federally supervised, private ballot in union elections.
SHRM is a member of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, a partnership of employee and employer organizations that are advocating on behalf of workers’ right to a secret ballot when they are deciding whether or not to join a union. Specifically, SHRM opposes the bill based on the following provisions of the legislation:
• Union Certification through Signed Authorization Card — The bill would force employees to make public their decision on whether or not to support a union. Under the bill, their decision would be made known to union officials, their employer and their co-workers. HR professionals are deeply concerned that, by eliminating the secret ballot, the bill would actually take away an employee’s private and “free choice,” expose employees to coercion and promote a threatening work environment for employees.
• First Contract Arbitration — The bill would effectively send any bargaining disputes to binding arbitration after 120 days—90 days of negotiations and 30 days of mediation on a first contract. HR professionals believe that mandatory binding arbitration is unnecessary because it would provide motivation for either a union or employer to engage in bad faith bargaining until the end of the 90-day period, thus allowing an arbitrator to impose unwanted employment conditions on both employees and management.' "
Steph wrote on November 23, 2008 9:59 pm:
EFCA has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating democracy (and for the HR special interests to claim they are pro-democratic workplace is disingenuous at best). EFCA is about making it easier to unionize without all the employer intimidation that's allowed to take place under the extraordinarily anti-union laws we have in place now. The NLRB is packed with anti-unionists and the EFCA is one tiny step towards giving workers the opportunity for a little more participation in the workplace and protection under the law.
For those so quick to blame unions, I have a few questions: Do you get time off? Do you get breaks throughout the day? Do you receive overtime for hours worked over 40 in a week? Do you have a safe and clean workplace? If so, THANK a unionist, don't dare blame them. Stripping away workers' rights in the current economic climate won't leave anyone any better off.
Unions aren't the problem. Uncontrolled capitalism and the fiction of the stock market are. "
Hop wrote on November 24, 2008 2:23 pm:
Regarding Unions providing Safe Workplaces - Ever hear of OSHA?
Forty hour work week, overtime & break periods - How about the Department of Labor and the Wage and Hour laws?
I'll grant you that Unions had a time and place. Unfortunately that time and place ended about 30 years ago. "
Dear Tim wrote on November 25, 2008 8:50 pm:
That being said, thank you for being an optimistic American. "