Top of This issue Current issue
I find it hard to believe that you wrote the following in the July "Rags and Bones": "We don't usually take away personal rights (such as speaking freely or bearing arms) because some substantial portion of the population is exercising those rights foolishly." Mr. Wallace, for at least fifteen years, you have been taking the position that our right to keep and bear arms should be infringed upon because a *tiny* portion of the population does illegal things with guns!! Criminals, at least those who are convicted, do not have the constitutional liberties that the rest of us have, and I think that is as it should be. But I **strongly** feel, as you well know, that those who are law abiding, should not be judged by the acts of criminals. So, how should we judge this latest statement?
Is it a change of mind (which I would welcome greatly!) Or is it a mistake? Or is it hypocrisy? Needlessly to say, I have for long respected and agreed with most of what you have had to say in this forum. But what should I say to this? It does not fit with your former positions. Should I celebrate, or should I have a glass of beer to help me digest an inconsistency? Inquiring minds want to know!
Bruce A. Clark
I enjoy your sarcasm (I always appreciate good snarkiness when I see it). I too was being sarcastic, in a pragmatic kind of way. I was appreciating, as pure ethical spectacle, the fact that my constitutional right to own a thirty-round cartridge for my Glock will not be taken away, just because Jared Loughner used one to shoot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Judge John Rolls and a nine year old girl, for example.