On bearing arms
Jack Lessenberry draws on a 1939 Supreme Court decision to support his opinion that individuals do not have a right to firearms ("Under the gun," Metro Times, April 25). Apparently, he rejects the right to protect oneself from dictators and common criminals. Strangely, it took 148 years from ratification of the U.S. Bill of Rights for nine justices to determine that the natural right to bear arms really belongs to kings and governments, not individuals.
If Mr. Lessenberry were to actually read the amendment, he would discover its reference to "the right of the people." Were he to read the Federalist Papers, he would find this confirmed: "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, Federalist No. 46)
I would expect Mr. Lessenberry, whose pantry is stocked through his right to free speech, to recognize how that right is protected by the right to bear arms. —Steve Sutton, Farmington Hills
Second that
I find myself oddly agreeing with Jack Lessenberry and this article. This said even from a pro-gun stance.
What's puzzling beyond all belief is how Cho's mental health records weren't filtered into his background check. And, pound per pound, one's state of mind isn't a consideration point in this review process? How? That's just unbelievable to me.
Perhaps that has been and is the biggest problem, the background checks. Had Cho's full record been reviewed, he'd have been turned down within seconds. The shootings at Virginia Tech likely wouldn't have happened.
Score one for the Brady Campaign, as they're right — our gun laws need some serious revamping.
Of course, I also believe the gun lobby is defensible in their statement: Someone hell bent on killing will kill, gun or no gun. If one thinks a firearm is a dangerous weapon, what about the next nut job who opts to build a chemical bomb and detonate an entire college building.
Horrible as this tragedy was, and as open to updated gun control as I may now be, I still don't and can't see an outright elimination of the Second Amendment as an individual right. Why? If you're not familiar with the Supreme Court case Castle Rock v. Gonzales, please become so. The Brady Campaign becomes quiet when this case is mentioned, as it contradicts their main argument for gun elimination. Think you don't need to (or have the tools to) defend yourself? ("That's what the police are here for.") Think again. —Jonathon Kecskes, St Clair Shores
One man's span
Re: "Uncovered bridge" (Metro Times, March 7), I see that the Matty Maroun and his bridge are back in the news again. However, whatever deal Mr. Maroun is cooking up should not take precedence over the real problem: How and why is Detroit's lone truck-compatible international border crossing under private ownership? Am I the only one who finds this concept completely absurd?
Think about this for a minute: Mr. Maroun, a private citizen, owns and controls the only bridge between the largest border city of the world's superpower and Canada. This is the only path in Detroit that allows billions of dollars of commerce by truck between two nations, yet it is owned by one man.
How can this be? How did it ever happen? When you stop to consider 9/11, it is difficult to believe that the federal government hasn't stepped up to take over control of the Ambassador Bridge, and the tunnel as well.
If there ever was a justifiable case for eminent domain, this is it. Both the bridge and the tunnel from Detroit to Windsor should be owned, operated, and under authority of the federal government. They should be fully staffed by armed U.S. Border Patrol agents.
One single, local man has no business owning such a significant, international commodity. —Kurt Kelly, Delray Beach, Fla.
Monogrammed meat
In your article "Feast your eyes" (Metro Times, April 11), my chicken took a beating: "Baked in the sun and rolled around on a recently repaved blacktop driveway." I have to say, it does look like that. The black bits of goodness are from my well-seasoned cast-iron grates. How about that crosshatch searing on the fillet side of the T-bone? Smith & Wollensky would be proud.
At the risk of you telling my sister to have me stop sending you pictures of my meat, I feel I need to redeem myself. Here's a brisket I made last month. Note the juices collecting in the bottom of the W. —David Weakley, Columbus, Ohio
Speaking of tongues
I really appreciated Todd Abrams' article, "Bite your tongue." (Metro Times, April 11). It was a refreshing look at foods that are out of the American mainstream but obviously tasty enough to be considered delicacies by many. As the son-in-law of a couple of Scottish immigrants, I've grown accustomed to buying them tongues, beef shanks and rabbits at Gratiot Central, and I've learned that they can be as delicious as they are obscure to most of us.
That kind of open-mindedness would do a world of good for our myopic culture in so many other areas. It's a great world, ain't it? —Ken Schramm, Troy
Send letters (250 words or less, please) to [email protected]. Please include your telephone number for verification. We reserve the right to edit for length, clarity and libel.
