A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
A quick Google search does not show the Second Amendment as simply pertaining to the militia ("The mass shooting merry-go-round,” Letters, The Chief, Sept. 5). While admittedly lacking details, the search reveals the Second Amendment has been the subject of intense debate for decades, if not centuries. The amendment is complicated and convoluted.
The letter writer basically tells us we should vote for Democrats to counter Republican indifference to mass shootings. His opinion. But the writer does not tell us the Democrats had the House and Senate 2007-2009, 2009-2011 and 2019-2021. Why didn't the "saintly" Democrats, when they had the majority, pass gun control to counter the "evil" Republicans? Or universal health care?
I agree with some of the letter writer’s opinions, although I wish he could focus on a subject other than the 47th president. I have a major issue with him providing only those facts that support his opinions. The author posted on the website that he can't debate someone who doesn't make sense. It's also impossible to debate someone who doesn't look at all sides of the issue.
Nat Weiner
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
wpeakes
@Nat Weiner
Yours is among the hundreds, if not thousands, of skewed and deflective comments I read regularly whenever there's a mass shooting and the discussion turns to firearms and/or the Second Amendment. It's exhausting and disingenuous. My bottom line opinion is that outside of law enforcement and the military, no one, absolutely no one, has a need for a firearm. Especially automatic weapons. Many, many, many people lack the training and temperament to be able responsibly own one much less to carry it concealed or otherwise in public. "Well-regulated militia" doesn't mean "general public" to me. We're living in fraught times when we have to fear both good and bad guys with guns, short tempers, and itchy trigger fingers. Enough is enough. Your sarcasm referencing "'saintly' Democrats" fails to "look at all sides of the issue" when it was Republicans and Mr. Trump who torpedoed a bipartisan bill meant to address the proliferation of guns in our country for political purposes. Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around but we'll never get to a desperately needed solution if we can even agree that the danger is real and present for us all.
Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Report this
fcannisi
Nat, there is nothing complicated or convoluted about the Second Amendment. It is a single sentence long:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You suggest we perform a Google search. That's a good idea. Search "last SCOTUS decision prior to Heller v D.C." and you will find:
"United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Argued:
March 30, 1939
Decided:
May 15, 1939
Annotation
Primary Holding
Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation."
It was a unanimous decision that found that the Second Amendment applied directly to a "well-regulated militia" and did not provide an individual right as was ruled in Heller v D.C.
As for the "saintly" Democrats failing to pass gun control when they held the majority, I'll remind you that Obama tried to pass the "Bipartisan Backgrounds Check Act of 2013" following the Sandy Hook massacre only to be blocked by a GOP filibuster.
There is no other "side of the issue" as to which party has created the problem America has with guns. The GOP created, perpetuates and owns this problem, period.
As for Trump, my only mention in the letter you reference was to his political grandstanding in deploying military troops on American soil. An abomination; in my opinion.
Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Report this
Valete
Outlawing all guns is a complex and contentious topic.
Opponents of bans argue that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws and would continue to obtain illegal firearms. This suggests that a ban would disarm law-abiding citizens while doing little to stop determined killers.
Failure to address root causes: Some argue that mass killings are a symptom of deeper societal issues, such as mental health crises, social alienation, or cultural problems, rather than simply gun availability. Focusing solely on gun control, therefore, fails to address the underlying reasons for such violence.
Because a complete ban on all guns is not a realistic or legally viable solution in the U.S., policy debates tend to focus on specific, targeted restrictions. There is mounting evidence that certain regulations, particularly those concerning high-capacity magazines and requiring permits-to-purchase, can reduce the lethality and frequency of mass shootings. However, the complex factors contributing to mass violence mean that there is no single solution.
Wednesday, September 10, 2025 Report this
Valete
Dear Mr. Weiner,
Over the past fifty years, our world has undergone profound changes that echo George Orwell’s dystopian vision in 1984. The rise of surveillance, authoritarian rule, violence, and the suppression of individual thought and freedom is undeniable.
Picture this: you’re in Room 101, facing your fears and becoming a mindless party leader loyal to Big Brother. Techniques similar to historical revisionism—the story ‘manufactured to serve the Ministry of Truth’—are used to cloud citizens’ minds. Tele screens under the Thought Police constantly monitor and shape people’s thoughts and actions, all under Big Brother’s watchful eye. This society is a dystopian nightmare where everyone is enslaved, and war and famine are seen as beneficial and justified by its brainwashed citizens, who, we’re told by the New World Order, were once freedom-loving Americans. This is the world we live in—yesterday, today, and tomorrow, unless we wake up real fast.
Wednesday, September 10, 2025 Report this
fcannisi
Nat, one final thought. The last sentence in your letter suggesting that it's "impossible to debate someone who doesn't look at all sides of an issue" is antithetical to what constitutes a debate.
Debates consist of two parties who argue opposing points of view (my letters and your letters) with the intention of winning over a third party (the Chief readers).
Neither side in a debate has an obligation to undermine their own arguments. That would, indeed, make no sense.
Thursday, September 11, 2025 Report this
Valete
I am done writing letters to The Chief.
I am done with the world’s endless grief.
I am but a mere forlorn mortal being.
Why should I care if the world is weeping?
It is time for me to smell the world’s roses.
Pray in the evening and read divine composers.
I leave the world and its impassioned quest for might.
I will read and write poetry to my heart’s delight.
To The Chief newspaper I say farewell.
I wish you peace , and I hope all is well.
It’s been a blast to write transientl letters.
regarding current events free from fetters.
Peace be with you
Thursday, September 11, 2025 Report this
wpeakes
Word Mann (aka JDonne, 0000)
That's a great poem and if it's your last stream of consciousness to the Chief, I wish you well in your future endeavors. Be safe and take care of yourself.
Friday, September 12, 2025 Report this