Rights, restrictions
Re: “Repeal the Second Amendment” (10/3/2017): Why are you falling into this trap? The Second Amendment does not preclude gun control laws. This is not a constitutional issue, but a legislative failing.
— Doran Mackowski (via Facebook)
Keep the Second Amendment, but so that it only applies to types of firearms that existed in 1787, when it was actually written.
— Paul Saganski (via Facebook)
The First Amendment, despite its place in the Constitution, is not a limitless protection of our free speech rights. Why do we regard the Second Amendment as an absolute and insurmountable barrier to any reasonable restrictions? The time has come that we as a nation reject that nonsense. Just like our freedom of speech, reasonable restrictions are essential. Of course we can have them; we already have some. The National Firearms Act of 1934 established strict regulation of the ownership of certain types of weapons that are thankfully absent from today’s streets: fully automatic firearms, artillery pieces, explosives and so on. We have enacted gun control in the past. We can and should do it again.
— Nate Eklof (via email)
Density good
Re: “Blockbusters” (10/5/2017): The article misses the real issue at play — the rebirth of the East Washington corridor (with other projects) could produce a truly vibrant economic and entertainment hub for a long-overlooked part of Madison. A small group in Tenney-Lapham threatens that vision in defending what Patty Prime is quoted as calling “the character of the neighborhood.” I don’t understand her fear that the sky is falling.
Tenney-Lapham is a downtown neighborhood and needs to act in the overall city’s best interests. The project’s opponents are oblivious to the big picture — housing density is the only way to promote economic, social and racial diversity and attract new jobs and cut down on sprawl and commuting. Moreover, the project is on Johnson Street, already a mixed-use thoroughfare.
Time and again the article mentions “neighborhood,” but no plebiscite occurred. Ms. Prime objects that a survey sent by the developer seemed “distinctly geared to go around the process of engaging the neighborhood.” Not so — it simply tried to shine some light on a process which gave veto power to a steering committee heavily skewed toward already vocal opponents of development.
— Joseph L. Davis (via email)
