Your Letters: June 9, 2021
A salt gun
A June 6 AP article in the Daily Press reported that District Court judge Roger Benitez had lifted California’s 1989 ban on “assault weapons.” He was right about that, at least to those who believe we should live by our Constitution and its Second Amendment, which is fundamental to our founding.
What are “assault weapons”? The AP article states that they are defined by law as more dangerous than other firearms and are used disproportionately in crimes, mass shootings and against law enforcement, with more victims, according to California-based AG Rob Bonta. This is a general and vague definition that always leads to an arbitrary application of the law.
Laws need to be specific in order to be properly understood by the public, police, prosecutors and the courts. For 30 years, politicians who want to ban guns have fallen on the nose when asked if they define “assault weapons” and have not offered anything that offers any reasonable, intelligent answer. Most of them point to the AR15 rifle – note that the AP presented a photo in the article – but the overwhelming majority of firearm violence is committed with handguns rather than rifles.
Here is a precise definition of an assault weapon: Any object that can be used as a weapon to attack another person.
All body parts, stones, bottles, water pistols (including those loaded with chemicals), maces, pepper spray, tasers, slingshots, crowbars, bricks, Molotov cocktails, hand tools, cutlery, swords, branches, timber, ropes, garrot, bicycle chains, brass knuckles, crossbows , “Nunchucks”, throwing stars, whips, bombs, grenades, cars, trucks and airplanes all fall under this definition.
An AR15 could just as easily be called a “salt weapon”. Makes just as much sense. The most dangerous weapon of attack is man. Banning inanimate objects makes no sense, as they cannot cause any damage on their own. Instead, prohibit the human offender. That is why there are prisons.
Gabriel Portillo, Hesperia
Why Trump thinks he won and why he lost
To answer why Trump thinks he won, we need to look back at 2016. The news media and polls have consistently slammed Trump. How did he win? The Democrats, the polls, and even the media failed to notice the huge crowds that came to the congresses. They didn’t look beyond the normal voting box to see what was going on. Also, not all voters took Trump seriously.
Fast forward to the 2020 election. The same old media attacks and polls that hit Trump. The rush was huge; There have been countless auto rallies for Trump. His opponent was hiding in a basement and when he spoke the crowds were small. How could Trump lose, especially since more people voted for him than before?
The only thing he didn’t think about was how many people hated him. Trump has been accused of empowering people who have done terrible things (the extreme right-wing guys who spew hatred against other races). This is true. But he also empowered the people of this country to stand up and express their opinions (freedom of expression). And they decided to give their opinion in the elections. 161 million people voted because Trump was running. Not Biden. Trump card. Trump could have run without resistance and he would still have lost. People didn’t like him that much, and he didn’t see it. They were mostly the silent majority waiting to cast their vote. And they did.
Charles Roth, Hesperia
We are now hearing more about this PhD in Psychology, Aruna Khilanani, and her quirky statements taken at the prestigious Yale University. In order not to repeat their fantasies of shooting white people and disposing of their bodies, but these despicable and volatile statements promoting violence should throw several warning signs of their mental stability.
More worryingly, the intellectual elite who run the university have so far done nothing to remove them from this institution other than make a lukewarm statement that their words contradict the values of the school.
On the other hand, when a white man or woman is Dr. Had Khilanani’s words about the shooting of a colored person been uttered, the reaction would have been very different. The police would have been called immediately; dispatched an armed SWAT team, issued search warrants, and placed the individual in protective custody for a mental health assessment. It seems we have literally stepped into a new twilight zone where race defines who we are.
William Cash, Victorville
Would you like to join the conversation? Email your submissions of 300 words or less to [email protected] Provide your address and phone number for confirmation of residence (these will not be published). Enter “Letter to the Editor” in the subject field with a suggested heading. All letters can be edited and rejected.