Sartell Newsleader • www.thenewsleaders.com
6
Our View
Congress should approve anti-gun-trafficking law
Despite terrible crimes like the slaughter of children at a school in Connecticut, nothing gets done about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. At the very least, an iron-clad law addressing criminal background checks could have been passed, but because of enormous lobbying efforts by gunmanufacturing interests it was not. Currently, some members of the U.S. Congress are considering passing a law that would make gun trafficking a federal crime. It’s about time. The trafficking of guns puts guns into the hands of tens of thousands of criminals every year. Americans are killed with guns at a rate 20 times higher than in other developed countries, according to the Care2 website. At least 85 percent of guns involved in crimes committed in New York City were brought there from outside of the state, illegally because of gun-trafficking. Due to the lack of a federal law governing guntrafficking, prosecutors have had to rely on a weak trafficking law similar to the ones agains trafficking of livestock or chickens. Because of that, according to Care2, prosecutors refuse to prosecute three in four gun-trafficking cases. Legislation now before the U.S. Senate would make gun-trafficking a federal crime and much easier to prosecute. Gun lobbyists, like the National Rifle Association, have long claimed there is no need for any new gunrestriction laws because, in their opinion, if current gun laws were enforced as they should be, we could stop criminals in their tracks when it comes to keeping guns out of their hands. That is what they claim, but the truth is guns are still easily obtained, often without background checks, especially in a guntrafficking network where guns can be purchased or bartered as easily as candy in a candy store. Gun advocates do have a point, however. If criminals are determined to harm people, they will find a way, legal or not, to obtain guns, knives, bombs or any other destructive devices. However, why in the world should we make it easier for them to obtain their guns? Some, with proper laws, would be stopped in their tracks and prosecuted, as they should be. A federal gun-trafficking law is long overdue, as are mandatory criminal background checks. Urge your senators to vote for the proposed anti-trafficking bill. To sign a petition, go to the Care2 website. That site is hoping to get 15,000 signatures on the petition by June 5. So far there are more than 12,000 people who have signed it. Wouldn’t it be nice if 12 million people or 120 million people sign it? One fine day – it’s inevitable – this nation will finally have reasonable laws to make it harder for the bad guys to obtain weapons. Let’s start now by passing the federal law against gun-trafficking.
Fairness and ethics
Newsleader staff members have the responsibility to report news fairly and accurately and are accountable to the public. Readers who feel we’ve fallen short of these standards are urged to call the Newsleader office at 363-7741. If matters cannot be resolved locally, readers are encouraged to take complaints to the Minnesota News Council, an independent agency designed to improve relationships between the public and the media and resolve conflicts. The council office may be reached at 612-341-9357.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Opinion Bundy’s not a patriot; he’s a lawbreaker It looked, at first, like scenes from a Technicolor wide-screen western epic movie, circa 1950s. There stood rancher Cliven Bundy, tall and proud, next to his two pardners, all three puffed up with sagebrush bravado. Behind them was the grandeur of the Nevada range country. All three men were wearing big white cowboy hats, the kind the good guys always wore in the movies. These men, it first appeared, were courageously defending Bundy’s cattlegrazing rights against that evil varmint, the Federal Government. These gruff-spoken good guys, white hats blazing in the sun, claimed they were protectors of our liberty. Freedom fighters. Rough-ridin’ vigilantes for Good. And, sure enough, it wasn’t long before a bunch of rough-and-tumble gun-toters showed up to help the victim, Bundy, protect his rights and the rights of all Americans from government over-reach into our lives. In a gun-wagging standoff, the government men backed down, and the Bundy-ites declared a victory for freedom. It was dubbed the “Battle of Bunkerville.” The rebels had won, and them goldarned government sidewinders had slithered back into the hills where they’d been hatched. And, go figure, it wasn’t long before right-wing Republicans began to hail Bundy as a true patriot, standing up heroically for all Americans so threatened by the forces of wicked Big Government. Chief among the right-wing cheerleaders was Fox News Channel’s right-wing preppy darling Sean Hannity. Politicians like Mike Huckabee,
Dennis Dalman Editor Rand Paul and Ted Cruz quickly got into line. They’d found a cause on the good ol’ frontier that they could champion. Then, all of sudden, one day – whoops! – Bundy opened his big mouth and said the following, concerning African-Americans: “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under a government subsidy?” When his words hit the air waves, many Bundy supporters, including the lineup of right-wing politicians, went running for the hills. Whoops! Bundy’s not the most shining example of a freedom fighter, after all. And he’s also a hypocrite, whining about subsidies for “cotton pickers” while range ranchers have had federal subsidies for years, including a lower-than-private rate in fees ranches pay the government to graze their cattle on federal lands. That is something Bundy has refused to do for 10 years, and that is why he owes the federal government – us – about $1 million in grazing fees – the same fees other law-
abiding ranchers have paid for decades. To their credit, right-wing politicians condemned Bundy’s racist filth. However, they shouldn’t have waited so long. He should have been roundly condemned earlier as a lawbreaker, not a freedom-loving patriot. Bundy, in fact, is not much better than other cult figures, who were lawbreakers but who gained status among some disaffected sorts for their “stands” against the government: people like Gordon Kahl of North Dakota, Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge, Jim Jones of Jonestown, David Koresh of Waco – to name just four. In all those cases, a conflict with the government ended badly – very badly. In some cases, yes, perhaps the government overreacted and came down too hard (such as at Waco). However, it was the blatant lawbreaking that brought the government to the doors of those men’s fortress mentalities. These so-called freedom fighters, like Bundy, have always been self-alienated oddballs with a chip on their shoulders, a deep-seated penchant to defy any authority, a chilling sense of paranoia and a longing for martyrdom (unfortunately, by taking others with them on their march toward assisted suicide). These “patriots” should not be emulated or applauded; they should be rejected and in many cases arrested and tried in a court of law. To call them freedom fighters is not only inaccurate, it’s insulting to those true patriots who did – and continue to – fight for freedom.
Letter to editor
Reader asks Scarbro ‘Where’s the beef?’ Gerald Gerads, Sartell Throughout the years, I suppose I have read almost all of Ron Scarbro’s columns. Some were confusing, some frustrating, some scary (like the one where his solution to the problems with North Korea was to nuke ‘em!), but they all are, in their own way, interesting. Just like his column on April 25. As a contemporary of Ron, I could
identify with growing up with the fear of the “Red Menace.” As a fellow citizen, I can identify with the frustration of watching the preening leader of the Russian Federation flaunt the international community as he tries to regain territory on his borders. So he really had me as I rushed toward the end of his column. Right up to the last sentence: “Let’s stop this aggression now.” Did the editor cut off the end of the
article? I was waiting for the big reveal, the solution to this dilemma. WWRD? What Would Ron Do? How would he show this hopelessly overwhelmed President how to tame the Russian bear? But just like all of the other critics of President Obama, there was no solution, no alternative. Unless the answer is, “Nuke ‘em!” Let me quote another commercial, Ron: “Where’s the beef”?
We are all responsible for our choices Little Falls is making national news. Not because it is a beautiful little community tucked away in one of the most gorgeous parts of this country, but because of a murder trial. It probably is not news to you that on Thanksgiving Day in 2012 homeowner Byron Smith sat armed with a gun in his house waiting for burglars he thought would come. He believed they would come because they had come before, broken in and burglarized his home. Well, indeed they did come. When they broke into his house this time, he shot and killed them. If that was the entire story, that would be tragic enough. But as always, the devil is in the details. Smith has been charged with premeditated first-degree murder for the shooting of the burglars. He is currently on trial. When I was a resident of Minnesota, I decided I wanted to buy a handgun and get a conceal/carry permit. The requirements were simple. I had to have a background check, and I had to attend a course to learn the laws and rules governing the use and the misuse of a firearm. The training was rather intense. I was taught when it is OK to shoot and when it isn’t. For example, if someone breaks into my house and steals my TV set and runs out the front door, I cannot shoot him. But if he breaks into my
Ron Scarbro Guest Writer house, steals my TV and in any way threatens me or anyone in my house, I have every right to shoot him and to continue shooting until the danger to me and mine passes. If I am walking down the street and I witness someone assaulting someone else, I am allowed by law to stop the assault even if it means I have to shoot the perpetrator. There are many more laws and rules. In fact far too many to cover in this column. Here then is the question. Did this homeowner have the right to kill his intruders? The law says if he felt his life was threatened, he did have that right. The problem for this homeowner was after he had shot one of the burglars and completely disabled her, he shot again specifically to kill her. The prosecutor alleges once the intruder was incapacitated, she no longer posed a threat. This quickly goes then from self-defense to murder. The prosecutor further alleges in this case since the homeowner “lay in wait” for the breakin, that then became premeditated murder.
Personally I think the charge of premeditation is an overcharge. The jury will decide. Based on the information published so far, I do believe Smith is probably guilty of a degree of murder in this case and should be punished for his action. This brings me to the crime of breaking and entering. With all the guns in the hands of citizens in this country, when one breaks into another’s house, they are basically begging to die. It would be similar to pointing a gun at a police officer. It doesn’t matter whether the gun is real or fake, you are begging to die and you will probably get your wish. For the record, while I don’t believe breaking and entering deserves the death penalty, if someone breaks into my home, I will not spend a lot of time debating the issue. I will do what is necessary to end the threat. We are all responsible for our choices. If one chooses to break into another’s house, they may well face a person who has chosen to defend his home, and it probably won’t end well. (Editor’s note: On Tuesday, April 19, the jury, after a three-hour deliberation, found Smith guilty of first- and second-degree murder and he has been sentenced to life without parole.)