Connected with poem
To the Editor:
I am a student at Rockwood South Middle School and I read Larry Werner’s editorial called “Good parents, teachers don’t let kids bully other kids” on Aug. 22.
I agree with Larry Werner’s heading because teachers are supposed to look after children. At least try. I also get his point that “The pain inflicted by bullies can last a lifetime.”
I have not been bullied but, I have known some people who were bullies. The victim’s lives changed ever since they got bullied; they no longer smiled, laughed, or talked to anyone. Like the mother’s son.
I know I’m not a mother, but for some reason that poem in the article, the mother found on the Internet, I understood it well. I really connected with it because I think it’s something that my mother would say to my teachers.
That poem always runs through my brain now and especially her dramatic statement, “What will you send home to me?”
I felt the pain of the boy who got bullied and the only thing that I couldn’t relate to is when he said to his mother that “Every class needs a nerd. I guess I am that nerd.”
If I walked in most of the classrooms in my school only 10 percent of the class may have a nerd. I asked my own class who was the nerd of the class and everyone looked around the class, joked and said it was me; they got serious and said no one.
l disagree with that statement. I do believe that every class has a friend though.
This editorial is fantastic and one of the best I have read. I believe someday bullying will end.
Anti-gun left nonsense
To the Editor:
As a firearms instructor I often hear nonsense from the anti-gun left.
I commonly hear that the “Militia Clause” means the National Guard. Please explain how the phrase “A well-regulated militia”, written in 1789 and ratified in 1797, could refer to the National Guard, a branch of service proposed under the Roosevelt Administration, and created under the Wilson Administration in 1917.
SCOTUS recognized this and affirmed it in 2008.
Our constitutional system is based upon the principle that the state draws its power from the consent of the governed.
The people possess “unalienable” rights by virtue of their humanity – the state does not “grant” rights.
The entire the point of our Constitution is to limit the government’s ability to infringe on any of those rights. Thus Sarah “I Don’t Believe Gun Owners Have Rights” Brady and her ilk must conclude that the “right of the People” in the Second Amendment, refers to a different “People” than those mentioned by the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th.
James Madison had never envisioned an enumerated Bill of Rights. The above clause was intended to be inserted into Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4.
This would place it with the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.
Note that all of these are individual civil rights, asserted by individuals, as a defense against government action. Clearly, the intent was to preserve the rights of the individual.
Gun lobby blood money
To the Editor:
There have been 161 shooting deaths in US schools since Columbine. The NRA’s solution is more guns in schools, assuming that the guards at each entrance would carry firearms. Insanity! In the 2012 election Michele Bachmann, my U.S. representative, received over $96,000 in contributions from “gun rights” organizations.
If she must run for office in 2014, I hope she will man-up and decline blood money from the powerful gun lobby.
Withholding killer’s name
To the Editor:
SCUMBAG253 is the code name I’ve given to the demented perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown Connecticut.
Of course, his real name became famous worldwide within a few hours of the cowardly act. The question is why do we allow instant fame to be bestowed on these blood thirsty monsters? Surely instant fame has to part and perhaps the majority of the motivation for these rampages. Yet we as a society grant fame in every single instance even though it is within our power to deny it.
Certainly Congress could pass legislation prohibiting the publishing of mass murders names. Likewise, the media could come to an agreement to withhold the names across the board. This would be similar to current policy of not naming juveniles who have committed crimes.
The police would still be able to perform a thorough investigation, although they might be slowed a bit. Considering death is typically the outcome to the perpetrator a lengthened investigation should not hurt. The police would use the actual name in their investigation. Perhaps the FBI could define and disseminate the code names.
While it’s just conjecture on my part, I would imagine these crazed gunmen who performed the rampages took pride in what they did. That they even imagined some sort of competition with other mass murderers who came before them.
They looked forward to having their crime placed alongside of all the pervious rampages. Viewed in that light, it is obvious that fame is an integral part of the whole mix of planning and executing these crimes.
Just how many murders withholding a killer’s name would save is unpredictable. However, revoking their immortal fame is reason enough.
Government as force
To The Editor:
Wes Volkenant (Dec 14, 2012) did a wonderful job of summing up the DFL majority vision of government: “I am part of a statewide majority that rejects the vision of limited government – [we] want an active, involved government.”
I, on the other hand, fear and loathe what he desires.
He views government as a force for good. I view government as force.
He is comfortable with a powerful national government that trumps the individual states. I am uncomfortable with a federal government that has extended dangerously beyond its enumerated powers.
He expresses no reservations about “a long history of Supreme Court decisions.” I see in that same history a near total abandonment of our founding values.
But let’s ignore history, the Constitution, religion, founding principles and the liberal/conservative paradigm for a moment.
Does Mr. Volkenant believe in the principle that human relationships should be voluntary, except in cases where there is a truly compelling state interest otherwise?
Such a principle would allow us to purchase the illumination technology we prefer.
It would allow us to join trade collectives by free choice.
It would allow doctors to treat patients without innumerable government dictates.
It would not force us to pay for services delivered to others.
It would allow us to choose how best to educate our children.
It would allow us to be free.
Unfortunately, progressive busybodies who believe that everything involves a compelling state interest have used the force of government to take away our freedoms, bit by bit, choice by choice, until we cannot defecate without the government getting involved in our toilet choices.