December 29, 2012

  • The Wichita eagle Opinion Line, Dec. 29, 2010

    “Was Rep. Tim Huelskamp elected to represent the citizen’s of Kansas’ 1st Congressional District, or was he elected to represent Speaker John Boehner?”

    Time to nitpick. Kansas has a 1st congressional district for the election of state representatives to the state House of Representatives. We also have a first U. S. District, in Kansas, to elect a representative to the U. S. House of Representatives. Huelskamp ran opposed. He garnered over 112,000 votes. He was elected to a deliberative body, a body designed to bring forth honest debate on issues beyond the scope of the home state, alone.

    There is way that any individual can voice the opinions of each of the people who vote for any particular representative, let alone voice the opinions of those who voted against that person, failed to vote, or were ineligible to vote because of age or legal status.

    Much as with sandlot baseball, sides are chosen, and once a person is selected for a particular team, then shines as they might within the framework of that team, there is still a group effort to propel that team to a win, if possible.

    Huelskamp bring his own biases and prejudices with him, as any representative is apt to do. He has views on religion, abortion, gun control, gay rights, taxation, social programs that cannot possibly appease every voter. The only hope citizen’s have is that the person they vote for will consider the law when making new laws, or amending existing laws, and to have an understanding of how the majority of the people who voted for him/her feel about specific kinds of issues.

    In a deliberative body, such as any representative body, some compromise is necessary in order to advance any position. No representative stands alone, nor does any on representative make the final law. Tim Huelskamp pitted himself against his party’s leadership, and paid the price. His stubbornness cost him dearly, and in the process, cost Kansas the loss of a member on key committees.

    *****

    “Rep. Mike Pompeo; you have been strangely silent on the fiscal cliff, gun violence and the growing economy. Where are you? Koch got your tongue?*****

    “If I am to understand the anti-gun zealots, the guns commit the murders. So, using their analogy, let people who committed the murders out of prison, and put the guns in prison.”

    Zealots are only those folks who disagree with me. Thus this person characterizes some folk as anti-gun zealots.

    We all know that we only have to lock up the ammunition. it’s the ammo that kills.

    And, as we all know, this opinion generates more heat than light.

    ****

    “Why do we need more laws to control guns? A man kills his grandmother using a hammer to crush her head. He serves 17 years. Then he shoots and kills two volunteer firemen. Why was he out of prison? Soft-on-crime liberals are the problem.”

    Nice to have an answer, even if it is inaccurate. Most of our justices are conservative. Many of our laws are conservative when it comes to convicting, incarcerating and releasing criminals. We have a society where we are willing to lock people up for relative monitor offenses, producing over-crowded conditions, and leaving us with a society is apt not endorse building more jail and prison space, or funding programs that help parolees to become gainfully employed or have programs for on-going therapy or social re-integration. Some states have laws where a prison is automatically released after serving his/her sentence.

    In the instance cited in the opinion, the man probably functioned quite well in a controlled environment. That doesn’t mean that such an individual can handle the pressures of then living on his own without structure.

    This isn’t a matter of liberalism versus conservatism. The person who penned that opinion over-simplified the issue, thus offered a simplistic sentiment.

    *****

    “The purpose of the Second Amendment was to give us the right to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. If government has assault weapons, then citizens need assault weapons. It about limiting the power of government.”

    If ignorance be bliss, then the person who wrote that opinion might well be the happiest person on the face of the planet.

    Oddly, I suspect this person supports people being able to purchase assault rifles. However, the answer to this misinterpretation of the Second Amendment would be to take assault rifles away from the people, as well as the government.

    But, militias represent government. Be it from ancient times when there were Samurai protectors, or King Arthur’s knight of the round table, or a specially deputized posse to assist the sheriff, militias have always represented government. What this person would have as an option, would be rebels forces, guerilla-styled forces. People working outside of the law. Militia units augment government forces. They are formed for specific purposes, most often trained by and equipped by the government.

    Dictators may employ special forces that work against the interests of the people - a palace guard, for example. However, when citizens then form their own combative forces, these are formed outside the auspices of government. There cause may be noble, their fervor admirable. That doesn’t equate them to militia, nor does such a concept fall under the umbrella of the Second Amendment to our constitution; its language or its intent.