Union Democrat staff

Assault rifles

To the editor:

The argument for all Americans to have assault rifles:

Clause L in HR1022 is totally unconstitutional - period. Militia is an old word that has a different meaning than its connotation today. The state's militia is all males 17 to 43 (differs slightly state to state). The sheriff can deputize a posse, and that posse is the militia.

The second amendment is clear on this - that the states have the right to a well-organized militia (armed citizens), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole intent is for the citizens to be armed with military-grade arms.

In some ways I am amazed, that with all the terrorists threats the U.S. government isn't demanding that all citizens be armed with assault weapons. If all Americans knew that it was their responsibility to defend the United States (their state) from all enemies foreign and domestic and were so armed, the illegal alien invasion would not have occurred. And that is precisely why the United States has never been (successfully) invaded by a foreign military.

Those that propose this sort of infringement on the right of the people, and remove the citizen from the militia are badly misinformed. And, those who advocate this sort of limiting of the right to keep and bear arms (military grade) from citizens as defenders of their state and their country are irresponsible.

We would defend our state and country with inferior arms due to this sort of mentally deficient legislation. What? Are you trying to get United States killed?? Whose side are you on?

Please note: HR1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, is not active legislation at this instant. However, everyone knows that gun and ammo sales have been through the roof due to concern that a treasonous Congress may actually enact something similar.

Any restriction on ammo is an infringement of the second amendment. This serves as an actual example of what may be in Congress again. This sort of legislation is always unconstitutional, and those that promote it and vote for it are acting against the best interests of America.

Keyth Pike


Things change

To the editor:

I am curious. The state of California is on the verge of bankruptcy, as is the federal government. And yet state employees, from teachers to engineers to prison guards to scientists, seem to think they should be immune to any cuts in either their pay or their benefits.

Where exactly do they think the money to pay them should come from? No one wants a cut in their income, God knows, but they have chosen to work in public sector jobs. Though they assumed when they took these jobs that their remuneration was safe from entanglements, they are finding out now that maybe they aren't.

Perhaps the time has come for them to quit their current jobs and take private-sector jobs instead. Oh, but wait a minute, the private sector, too, is cutting back with massive layoffs in all areas of the economy.

What is one to do? The answer must be to tighten one's belt, adjust to the coming cuts, and wait for better times to come. There are no other choices. If the state or federal government doesn't have the money, there is nothing else to be done.

These people seem to think we should just keep on as we are, issuing large paychecks and offering outrageous retirement benefits, because that is what they expected when they signed on. Well, folks, things change and stuff happens. I suggest you deal with it or change jobs.

Philip Gross