Letters about guns, money, and GM
Weekly letters to the editor.
Published: April 22, 2014
We had a number of strident online responses to Larry Gabriel’s April 16 column on the recent uptick in Detroit homeowners shooting intruders.
I’m definitely no Republican or conservative, but all of you damned super-left, bleeding-heart liberals need to petition [former New York City Mayor] Michael Bloomberg to create his own nation where firearms are completely restricted, even for law-abiding citizens, everyone sings “Kumbaya,” and nothing bad ever, ever happens in Bloomtopia.
And for the record, I’m a convicted felon because of some stupid shit I did when I was 18 and 19. I’m 28 now, with my life in order as an educated, working and contributing member of society. Since I cannot currently legally purchase a pistol, I’m going to illegally buy one to protect myself. Not so I can be a gangsta and carry it when I go to Wal-Mart or my aunt’s house in Livonia or when I go pick up my schwarma at Bucharest. I want one for home personal protection. Two clichéd phrases come to mind when discussing this topic: In owning a firearm, “I’d rather have a gun and hopefully never need to use it than desperately need one and not have one.” And then in regards to me possessing one illegal, “I’d rather be judged by 12 men than carried by 6.”
You’re great, Metro Times, but your hippie, ultra-left viewpoints get old real quick. Tighten up.
A user identified as Jmaj posted:
As traumatic as the emotional issues go from shooting an intruder, I’d much rather go through therapy than be 6 feet under.
Politics for the Rich
Numerous readers responded to Jack Lessenberry’s April 16 column, “In Congress, Big-Interest Money Groups Rule.”
The United States is an oligarchy. A new study by researchers from Princeton and Northwestern universities finds that America’s government policies reflect the wishes of the rich and of powerful interest groups, rather than the wishes of the majority of citizens. “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”
Reader “John S.” posted:
Of course people pour money into elections in the hope [of] getting influence — why else would the UAW, MEA, AFL-CIO pour money and “free” man-hours into the Democratic Party? (Six of the top 10 contributors are unions.) Why else does the media (also known as corporations) hide scandals … to guarantee access? Why do [George] Soros and the like pour money to the same destination? Which is the greater problem: the money pouring into the system, or the hypocrisy of the side eagerly taking in the money while claiming it is evil?
A number of readers chimed in with additional comments on Jack Lessenberry’s April 9 column, “Should General Motors Survive?”
I am completely in agreement with Jack Lessenberry’s concern over the fact that Mary Barra has never worked anywhere outside GM. Having worked there myself as a contract employee for 17 years I was aware of their preference for hiring new engineering employees fresh out of school as it was far easier to imprint the GM way of doing things on these tabulae rasae. It reminds me of an old joke: A wife tells her husband, “You’re a lousy lover.” He smacks her and replies, “That’s for knowing the difference.” A work history involving several employers better equips one to identify the shortcomings of a subsequent employer. Unfortunately, GM managers are more concerned with “business as usual” rather than improving the process, even when it means gambling with their customers’ lives. — Gail Gilchrist, Royal Oak
> Email MT readers