Hostility at immigration forum
Re: “Migrant forum tips emotions,” Oct. 23 news story.
Rep. Tom Tancredo’s so-called immigration forum last weekend was a rally of hate, scapegoating, distortion and hostility. Definitely not what Colorado needs.
Forum participants smeared immigrants, alleging they’re the cause of most of our current problems, including taking jobs from U.S. citizens. Tell that to farmers who need someone to shovel manure; to ranchers who need peaches harvested in 100-degree temperatures; to nursing homes that can’t find people to clean dirty bedpans; and to hotels and packing plants that, despite huge efforts, cannot find U.S. workers to fill essential jobs.
Name-calling took up much of the meeting, with immigrants mislabeled as prostitutes and blamed for causing disease and crime. Biased participants urged adoption of polices that would put people in holding pens, deport them without a trial, ignore the Constitution, and intimidate them by patrolling their neighborhoods 24/7.
Such actions repudiate who we are as a nation. We mustn’t live in this kind of community.
Tancredo is my representative, but he doesn’t represent my values or the values of many of us. Instead of working to find a solution, he’s rallying the forces of hatred and division to make us less than we are. Colorado, it’s time to wake up before it’s too late.
Donna L. Lipinski, Evergreen
Gun makers’ liability and the 2nd Amendment
Re: “Shooting straight on guns,” Oct. 25 Ed Quillen column.
Ed Quillen was right on the mark in his column regarding new federal legislation protecting firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt one of America’s oldest industries. Not only is it wrong to hold manufacturers liable for the criminal misuse of their products, but it is downright cowardly for anti-gun forces to circumvent the democratic process and the Constitution in this insidious attempt to eradicate firearms.
Those of us who value our freedom to keep and bear arms have always welcomed an open and honest debate on the issue of firearms use and ownership with those who would seek to ignore or destroy our Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, we have had few takers from a crowd that appears to rely more and more on liberal activist courts rather than the ballot box to promote their anti-gun agenda.
Anthony J. Fabian, President, Colorado State Shooting Association, Aurora
…
Ed Quillen believes the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to gun ownership.
The Second Amendment was introduced into Congress by James Madison as a guarantee to the states that the federal government would not attempt to disarm their militias. The new federal constitution took the away the authority of the states to arm their militias and gave it to the new central government. Some anti-Federalists feared that the new government could simply refuse to arm the state militias, and leave the states unprotected. Hence the preamble to the amendment: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”
The original version of the amendment included an exemption from militia service for conscientious objectors, further demonstrating the amendment was concerned with military, not personal, matters. It is clear from the debates in the House that no one was talking about a personal right to own weapons. The debates were solely concerned with the militia, and militia service. None of the writings of the framers lends support to a “personal right” interpretation of the amendment. Nor has the Supreme Court ever recognized a personal right in the amendment. Every federal court but one that has dealt with the amendment has affirmed that the amendment was not created to recognize a personal right to gun ownership.
The states are free to recognize such a personal right, and the Colorado Constitution does so. But there is no such federal right. Quillen’s suggestion that an amendment to the federal constitution would be necessary to “remove” a personal right to gun ownership is simply wrong.
Jeffrey S. Ryan, Breckenridge
The threat of the avian bird flu
As a traveler to Asia, I have been exposed to the SARS situation, and have been following the developments of the avian bird flu. Recently, I listened to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt talk about bird flu on C-Span. They get it, and are trying to do something. I do not believe we as a nation get it. Especially now, in times of scarce resources aggravated by ill-conceived war, unexpected natural disasters, growing national debt, and pork-filled transportation bills.
No one is sure this pandemic will hit, but it is spreading. No one can say that a human strain will flourish. But the cost of not being ready will be 50 times Katrina and Iraq combined, in terms of damage to our economy, public hysteria and millions of dead. A real flu pandemic would make Sept. 11 look like a traffic accident.
Money must be spent now to shore up vaccine production capability and staff global tracking.
Also, the bird flu campaign must be granted immunity from politics. Otherwise we’ll all be dead by the time political deals and posturing are complete.
And finally, the Centers for Disease Control must be put clearly in charge – not, God help us, one of Bush’s inner-circle pals. The severity of an avian flu pandemic leaves zero margin for ineptitude.
Roland Dupree, Denver
Denver pot initiative
Re: “‘No’ for Denver pot initiative,” Oct. 25 editorial endorsement.
In its editorial, The Post said, “Colorado and the nation need to have realistic debate about decriminalizing marijuana, but ballot initiative I-100 in Denver doesn’t contribute much to that discussion.” In fact, the Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) campaign is the first major addition to the national marijuana debate in years.
There are two substances in this country widely used for recreational purposes – marijuana and alcohol. Despite the fact that every government study ever done has concluded that marijuana is safer – both for the user and society – it remains the illegal drug. This creates a tremendous incentive for people to use alcohol instead of marijuana. Making marijuana legal for adults would undoubtedly result in some people using marijuana instead of alcohol.
With alcohol causing about 85,000 deaths (source: American Medical Association) and factoring in more than 3 million violent incidents each year (source: U.S. Department of Justice), it is a “preposterous assertion” – to use The Post’s words – to say this should not be part of the debate over marijuana policy.
Steve Fox, Potomac, Md.
The writer is former director of government affairs for the Marijuana Policy Project.
…
I-100 on the Denver ballot is not about legalizing an ounce of marijuana or reducing crime. It is about changing our attitude towards illegal drugs. Those behind Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) are betting on the ignorance of Denver voters. SAFER has not promoted I-100 as a step towards drug legalization. Instead, it is attempting to send the message that if I-100 passes, Denver will see reductions in domestic violence and alcohol-related injuries, death and societal problems.
SAFER’s propaganda does not mention the word “marijuana.” This is not a mistake, it is a strategy – a strategy designed to confuse enough voters to get I-100 passed. Denver voters should be insulted. Be an educated voter and make your choice based on the facts. Nothing will change regarding the enforcement of federal and state marijuana laws. The only thing that will change is what we are telling our kids.
Jeffrey D. Sweetin, Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement Administration, Rocky Mountain Field Division
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
