Letters for July 28, 2016
More Highton feedback
Re “The Trump card” (cover story, June 30):
I wish this article had come out sooner, because Jake Highton said what I already knew about Clinton—a servitor of the same corporations that are shipping jobs overseas while demanding tax breaks to keep 10 percent or less here. Look at her donor lists, including the ones from energy bigwigs, military, etc. Add it up with the bonehead calls she’s already made, and you have someone who’ll keep us moving towards a scary future we’ve already seen in too many movies.
The Don may not be the most P.C. guy around, but hey, I lived in both L.A. and El Paso. Guess who most of the meth and heroin dealers were making downtown such an ugly place? Illegals from down south. Deporting them’s no good—they just come back with more community-wrecking drugs. And even if Trump got his wish for tougher policies, there will still be lots of chances for those who want to be here legally. Then if you see his ideas for taking America back from the P.C. Nazis and corporate thugs on his webpage, combined with the fact no one owns him, makes him the best chance this country’s got to be economically strong again. And you’ll be surprised how much bigotry and racism shows it’s ugly face when everyone’s got a little more $ in their pocket, and small business are the majority.
Re “Aim for the truth” (news, June 30):
The article about the background check initiative failed to mention one minor detail. The law doesn’t apply to the criminals that it supposedly targets. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court found [Haynes vs. United States] that requiring felons and other prohibited possessors to file applications regarding guns—which they’re not permitted to have—is a violation of their 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. So, who does it affect?
Background checks were created by the KKK, along with poll taxes and voters’ literacy tests, to prevent blacks, the poor and their political opponents (such as members of the National Rifle Association) from having the means of defense or political power. The KKK also gave us the law banning so-called “Saturday Night Specials” (as well as that phrase itself, which is rooted in racism), because they knew that the poor and minorities couldn’t afford guns costing hundreds of dollars.
Consider that the same people who tell us that every gun buyer must show identification also tell us that requiring voters to show identification “disenfranchises” minorities. If one right is denied by identification requirements, all rights are denied.
It is known that members of the minority community are more likely to be prosecuted and convicted of minor offenses which now will keep them from passing a background check. They are less likely to be able to afford the private attorney which would make such charges evaporate for a middle-class white person.
The fees can prevent a young mother from buying the gun she needs to protect her children and herself from the guy who intends to make good his threats. When he breaks down her door, who will be there to defend her? You can bet that the wealthy white guy behind this scheme won’t be, nor will any of his personal (gun-toting) bodyguards. Her blood will be on his hands, and the hands of those who support him.
When you talk about “keeping guns out of the wrong hands,” remember that the KKK gave us that phrase. And the hands you see in your mind’s eye—they are brown, aren’t they?
Your disdain for our next president is well-documented. Fine. It’s time to turn your focus to much more critical issues of local importance.
The election of Chip Evans and Catherine Cortez Masto to the U.S. House and Senate, respectively, would be a huge boost to the progressive movement in Nevada. The issues are clear; their opponents are tools. Progressives should get involved, unless all they care about is publicity.
John M. Sweeney