To the editor,
The battle between the legions of gun advocates and opponents on the pages of the Review-Journal continues without observation of one critical sentence, just 27 words, found in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. One simple, quite clear sentence: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It’s quite clear. Nothing about types of weapons, hunting, self-defense, registration, background checks, confiscation, ammunition or any other talking point.
At the time it was written, arms used by the military were largely equivalent to those available to the citizenry. That’s what was meant then. It means that now. If you want it to say something different, change the amendment. It worked for Prohibition.
MARK R. CRAVEN
Work more hours
To the editor:
Washington has decided that raising the minimum wage is the solution to borderline poverty in America. All that will happen is that prices will go up and hiring will go down to absorb those changes.
Has anyone considered working more that eight hours a day, five days a week as a reasonable solution? The reason for the eight-hour day is that 24 hours divided by three factory shifts a day yields an eight-hour workday. Those jobs and the products that were produced are rapidly becoming history.
My own work history began on my family’s vegetable farm, through careers in landscape architecture, graphic and product design. Nowhere in the evolution of my career did I meet anyone, be it a farmer, a rancher, a small business owner or tenured university faculty, who achieved success in life working a mere 40-hour week.
Consider this formula: Determine the monthly income you feel you need to support the lifestyle you desire, divide that by the amount you are earning per hour, and that will determine the number of hours you must work per month to achieve that financial goal.
If the numbers don’t work for you, consider getting a additional part time job, cutting your budget back to cover true needs, or getting more education to raise your value to an employer.
While I believe that government can and should help those individuals facing difficult times, it shouldn’t permanently supplant the personal responsibility to take care of one’s self and family.
EDWIN R. HOAG
Where are her cuts?
To the editor:
The Feb. 27 opinion piece (“Avoiding the senseless spending cuts of sequester”) by U.S. Rep. Dina Titus was really interesting. Interesting because she was just channeling President Obama and the standard Democrat line about the budget.
The Republicans have suggested specific cuts to the federal budgets and the Democrats always say no, but won’t suggest any specific cuts of their own. All the Democrats want to do is raise taxes and spend. The Senate under Harry Reid hasn’t passed a budget in four years. This isn’t only irresponsible, but illegal.
What’s happening now is that the administration is picking out all the high profile services that will be slightly cut by the sequester in order to get maximum publicity and leverage against the Republicans, and the media are passively going along with this line.
If President Obama really wanted to make selective cuts to the federal budget, he has had 18 months to come up with those proposals. He hasn’t done so and has routinely blamed the Republicans. He’s in a constant campaign mode and has no intention of doing what is best for the American people, but only what is best for his special interest constituencies.
It’s truly disappointing that Rep. Titus is passively going along with this destructive party line.
WALTER F. WEGST