The Daily Tar HeelMonday, September 25, 19891 1
Opieioe
Right to bear arms
includes assault rifles
To the editor:
I take issue with Sharon Kebschull's
stand on firearms in "Battling the Ban:
Bush's stance on rifles is dangerous"
on Sept. 19. Simply put, she fails to
understand the significance of the "right
to bear arms" amendment to the
Constitution.
Many people today make the as
sumption that the Bill of Rights is out
dated when it comes to such things as
modern weapons; after all, a gun in
1789 meant something much different
than it does in 1989, and none of our
Founding Fathers could have foreseen
weapons of such mass destruction as
the AK-47 assault rifle. Yet what they
fail to see is that the designers of the
Constitution were not attempting to set
down a specific set of laws; that's what
they had fought a war against. Instead,
they were trying to protect the people of
the United States from the worst pos
sible threat: governmental tyranny.
They purposely left many points
vague and subject to interpretation, and
because of this flexibility we have been
able to maintain a stable government
under a variety of situations for over
200 years. Ms. Kebschull seems to think
that only governmental agencies should
have weapons. The men who shaped
this country would shudder at the
thought. The government was the last
place they wanted armed. A "well
regulated militia" has been interpreted
to mean the U.S. National Guard, and I
am not opposed to this. But under U.S.
law, the chief executive (the same evil
Mr. Bush Ms. Kebschull speaks of)
may nationalize the National Guard at
will, thus depriving us, the citizens of
this country, of a recourse against a
less-than-benign government.
We have been lucky. So far our
system has worked. We have not had to
deal with a tyrannical government. But
we might in the future if we have no
means to defend our freedom. Many
think that it could never happen, but
when one considers the number of
nations where it has, the prospect be
comes very real. We elect both our
executive and legislative branch, but if
our votes are not backed by naked force
then they are fiat; we are voting at our
government's benevolence. If our
government takes away our guns, then
be sure that it will take away our books,
our churches, our art and our right to
assemble, and we will have no one but
ourselves to blame. Who will stop it?
I do not think that assault rifles should
just be freely handed out, however.
There area many people who shouldn't
have access to them. Yet a total ban on
assault rifles and handguns would even
tually lead to other bafts'; and would
ultimately undermine our basic politi
cal strength. Gun control is an excellent
idea, but control does not mean elimi
nation. Ms. Kebschull also implies that
assault rifles have no "sporting use;"
she is missing the point of gun owner
ship. We don't own guns for fun; we
own them (ultimately) to ensure our
freedom on the sad day that it is be
trayed. Occasional accidents, though
tragic, are a price we have to pay for
that freedom. No one said it would be
cheap.
The people of the People's Republic
of China have no assault rifles. See how
safe the students in Tiananmen Square
were?
TERRY MANCOUR
Junior
English
CIA needed to protect
freedom; protests unfair
To the editor:
Ordinarily, I let Dale McKinley's
anti-CIA rantings go unchallenged since
any intelligent person recognizes such
allegations for what they are and his
supporters are too blind to accept the
fact that these fanciful "charges" against
the CIA are unfounded. However, the
recent column ("Bush hypocritical in
call for drug war after CIA activities,"
Sept. 18) on the oft-repeated, but com
pletely discredited, charges of CIA
involvement in the illegal drug trade
demands a response.
Ex-CIA agents who wrote books
attacking the CIA (which Mr. McKin
ley says you can find in the library as
indeed you can along with other
Marxist or even Nazi propaganda) have
been repeatedly proven to be liars or
opportunists and, in some cases, out-and-out
double agents. By the way, the
CIA has avowed that John Hull is not
and never has been a CIA agent (as was
alleged in the article).
But, more telling, when the Christie
Institute tried to bring these same false
charges of CIA involvement in drug
activities, not only did the federal court
throw out the case as completely
groundless, the Christie Institute was
assessed one of the largest punitive
penalties ever for bringing such a "frivo
lous" lawsuit. You might think about
this penalty, which the organization
paid from a "donation," and how this
relates to the truthfulness of that or
ganization, its "research," and its "evi
dence." I sincerely thank god that the CIA
exists. I do regret that "activists" like
Mr. McKinley have spread such innu
endo that naive people actually believe
some of these wild charges and thus
hamper the CIA in its function of pro
tecting us.
R. EVERETT LANGFORD
Graduate
Public health
Give students the facts
on student rec center
To the editor:
As a member of the UNC Class of
1989, 1 am concerned with the biased
press coverage that the DTH is giving
to the controversy surrounding the
proposed $4.5 million Student Recrea
tional Center. Even though I have gradu
ated, I believe that students should have
a recreation center that is student-operated
and that meets students' needs.
But the facts show a reason to be con
cerned with the current proposal.
The SRC, at a cost of $4.5 million
student dollars, will only be open dur
ing Fetzer gym hours, not on football
Saturdays, holidays, semester breaks
or any hours that Fetzer is closed, contra
dicting what Lisa Frye had promised us
before last year's referendum.
The physical education department
will actually control the building and
the possibility exists that it could
"annex" the student-funded SRC for its
own use when the need presents itself.
The actual referendum vote was not
56 percent of the student body, as the
DTH incorrectly reported on Sept. 21
("Opponents address flaws in SRC
plans"), but only 56 percent of the stu
dents who voted last year.
One PE faculty member wrote an
opinion to the DTH in which several
facts were disclosed regarding poten
tial problems with the SRC, however
this letter was never published.
Referendums, such as the SRC vote,
are not binding on the Student Con
gress, nor are they unalterable, although
Lisa Frye wants us all to forget this.
In light of these facts, which have
heretofore been concealed from stu
dents, Student Congress representatives
should reconsider the petition of Jeff
Beall in allowing another referendum
to take place. I would suggest that those
representatives who don't desire a new
referendum remember that political
mm
pressure works in two directions. I
would encourage all concerned stu
dents to express their concerns regard
ing the $4.5 million SRC to contact
Gene Davis, Lisa Frye and their own
representative. Remember, these student-elected
officials must represent
the interests of the students by whom
they are elected, and if they fail to do so,
they can be replaced.
CHARLES A. BALAN
Class of 1989
Department of Medicine
Banning guns and rifles
could only aid criminals
To the editor:
I would like to bring a different per
spective to the DTH editorial on Sept.
19 by Sharon Kebschull, "Battling a
Ban: Bush's Stance on Rifles is Dan
gerous," in reference to semiautomatic
weapons.
Ms. Kebschull says it is "difficult to
understand Bush's stubbornness on the
issue." The way I see it, Bush wants to
get tough on criminals, not the tools
they use to commit their crimes. You
don't outlaw cars to stop speeding; you
don't outlaw sex to stop sexual assault;
you don't outlaw liquor to stop under
age drinking and driving while im
paired. Why, then, do you want to out
law guns to stop their illegal use?
Ms. Kebschull's statement that
"conjecture would suggest that a ban
could only help" doesn't suggest that to
me at all. To me, conjecture would
suggest that if you outlaw guns, then
only outlaws will have guns. This is
further indicated by her statement re
garding the sale of guns going "under
ground." Surely you don't support a
law saying the only people who can
have guns are the drug dealers and
other criminals. But, if you force them
underground and restrict gun owner
ship by law-abiding citizens, this is, in
essence, what you are saying. Drugs
are illegal, but they are found and used.
NEGOTIATING WITH TEPoRST5.
The same applies to underground guns
if someone wants to break the law,
they can find any kind of gun they want,
and use it. I don't want the only people
who own guns to be law breakers with
access to the underground.
As for the NRA, Ms. Kebschull, the
NRA does have the good sense to see
the cries for a ban on semi-automatics
for what they are: the first step to a total
ban on all guns. As you yourself said,
"the first logical step would be a ban on
domestic rifles." What, then, would be
the next logical step, and the next?
I do agree with Ms. Kebschull on
one thing: we do need stricter laws, not
against guns, but against people, who
are, after all, the ones who pull the
triggers.
RICK CARROLL
Staff
Printing department
Morrison beach retreat
required much work
To the editor:
As representatives of the Morrison
government, we are very concerned
about the letter written by David Israel
on Sept. 1 9 ("Morrison officers use trip
as a perk"), and we would like to take
this opportunity to inform all of the true
nature of the beach retreat. Needless to
say, Mr. Israel's personal account of
our weekend has no legitimate founda
tion. First, the retreat was in no way a
vacation; it was a well-structured work
shop. The weekend was filled with
meetings to define the job of each
member, to explain procedures, to dis
cuss problems that face Morrison that
ordinarily could not be dealt with in
depth at a weekly meeting and, of
course, to brainstorm new ideas for the
coming year. As a result of this train
ing, the government members returned
to Morrison more informed and better
able to serve their residents. The retreat
also served to unify the members of the
group by allowing them to get better
acquainted and more comfortable with
each other so that they can work closely
together to provide better programming
for the dorm and their respective floors.
Although there was some free time
allotted, the majority of the time was
spent working in various conferences.
It was not a vacation by any means.
To answer Mr. Israel's assumption
that government members "are being
trained to expect perks" and that many
of them would not volunteer without
extras such as the retreat, it should be
known that most of the government
members were not aware of the retreat
until after they were elected. The amount
of work and time that each member
puts into planning and presenting pro
grams throughout the year far outweighs
any enjoyment they might have at the
beach for one weekend. Therefore, it is
impossible that their only motivation
for becoming involved is one short
weekend at the beach. As. a matter of
fact, Morrison government has proven
successful over the years; it is an or
ganization that people want to be in
volved in so they can contribute to
making Morrison a better and more
enjoyable place to live.
AUNDREA CREECH
Junior
Education
CARLTON BLOUNT
Senior
Biology
Buying guns too easy,
but ban not the answer
To the editor:
As to the issues raised in the Sept.
19 editorial "Battling the Ban: Bush's
stance on rifles is dangerous," first let
me expound on my personal slant
toward this issue. My father is a
member of the National Rifle Associa
tion and I have owned a gun of one type
or another since I was eight years old. I
am an avid hunter and sportsman.
The point Ms. Kebschull raises that
acquiring a gun is far too easy is valid
enough to lose sleep over. About the
only thing you have to do to be able to
buy a gun is prove who you say you
are with various forms of ID and fill
out a short questionnaire that asks
such questions as "Do you use illegal
drugs?" and "Do you intend to use
this weapon in an illegal act?" Obvi
ously, any idiot with a double digit IQ
is going to answer "no." I heartily
agree that buying a gun is far too easy.
However, I do differ with Ms.
Kebschull on other points. First, who is
going to be allowed to own a gun? Who
will be allowed to decide if I can own a
gun? The implications of these deci
sions will be far reaching if they have to
be made. Getting everyone to agree to
these decisions will be even harder than
making them in the first place.
And what of our friend with the AK
47 assault rifle? He turned the gun on
himself at the conclusion of his ram
page, so I will assume that he was
insane. Our Louisville gunman could
have done his deed with a snub-nose
.38 and a few speedloaders, or even a
Japanese long sword and the determi
nation of a madman. People, not guns,
kill people.
Lastly, making rifles illegal will do
little to keep these weapons out of the
hands of drug lords. They have ample
cash, and ample cash incentives, to
keep their cargo safe. Since they are
already engaging in illegal activities,
I doubt whether they are worried if
their guns are properly registered. It's
basic economics. As long as their is a
demand, there will be a supply. Ms.
Kebschull's reasons for banning rifles
are not valid.
ROY E. CRISP
Senior
Psychology
Women must speak out
on abortion experiences,
To the editor:
Without disqualifying in any way
the emotional trauma Katherine
Berkowitz expressed over her abortion
("Focus on Abortion," Sept. 13), we
would like to add some clarification
and thoughts of our own.
First, though, we would like to
commend the DTH for showing both
side of this controversial issue. The
range of opinions expressed reinforced
the reality that not every woman should
or would choose abortion, and that it is
an intensely personal decision that
cannot be legislated.
As pregnancy-options counselors,
we regret that some women can't find
the help they need making a difficult
decision. The goal of a counseling ses
sion ideally is to provide empathy and
information, so that a woman can see
all her options and make her own edu
cated choice. There is no question that
women deal with stress and trauma in
different ways, but, for example, just
because women have postpartum
blues, you don't hear anyone advocat
ing ending motherhood. Instead, new
mothers may form support groups or
seek professional help, which society .
usually condones.
It is frustrating to us that certain
women who have regretted their deci
sion to have an abortion have general
ized their experience to all women.
Making abortion illegal would pre
clude the guarantee of adequate coun
seling or the benefits of a supportive
environment and the good health care
that every woman has a right to and
deserves.
Karen Berkowitz talked about her
struggle with unanticipated grief after
her abortion. All too often we have
encountered women who are burdened
by the shame, stigma and isolation our
society presently places on a woman
choosing to terminate her pregnancy.
We can only speculate about the dra
matic impact that lifting this burden
could have on the healing process.
Perhaps we'd even start to see less
repeat unintended pregnancies!
As pro-choice advocates, we can
begin to empower ourselves and oth
ers, by breaking the silence and isola
tion surrounding abortion. Speak out
about your personal experience with
abortion. This is a time for reclaiming
and reaffirming our rights and respect
we must take action on this issue,
and that can start very close to home.
Last, we'd like to clarify the (lack
of) connection between abortion and
miscarriage. One in four pregnancies
end in miscarriage in America today.
There is no scientific evidence that
we know of that one (or two or three)
abortions will raise a woman's chance
of miscarriage above 25 percent. If
people are really concerned about the
"hazards" of this simple medical
procedure, why don't we make it easier
for doctors to get adequate training
and support them in their work, in
stead of threatening to bomb their
homes?
RUTH EVER
Graduate
Public health
MARIEKE VAN WHJLIGEN
Graduate
Public health