Yes to individual rights

To the editor -- Recently, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court made an historic finding that the Second Amendment to the Constitution contained an individual right to keep and bear arms. They found, essentially, that the word "people" meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it meant in all the rest of the amendments. Imagine that, common sense in a federal appointee!

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote one of the dissenting opinions, and was quite bitter about the majority's findings, stating, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right ... to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

If he is complaining that the opinion was cut from whole cloth, and wonders where it came from, then I might recommend that he looks to the bolt of cloth that Roe v. Wade was hacked from.

MARK A. DELAGASSE

Selah 

Assembling arsenal

To the editor -- After the Supreme Court announced that I have a sovereign individual right to bear arms, I wrote up a short list of weapons that I require for defending and recreating myself.

My neighbor's poodle gives me the evil eye and, though my wife says that I am being paranoid, I need an M67 Recoilless Rifle to keep that pooch at bay.

Because I sometimes retard traffic by observing the speed limit, I occasionally incur the wrath of other drivers, and I need a bazooka to convince them to back off.

A malevolent spirit has been peppering the Earth with rocks, so I need several of Ronald Reagan's ABMs to knock down any incoming meteors that may be hurled at my house.

As an avid marksman, I would enjoy targeting gila monsters in the Arizona desert from a launch pad atop Ahtanum Ridge.

My whale hunting experience would be enhanced if I had some nuclear tipped harpoons -- to be used in international waters only, of course.

Since my individual right to tote arms has a constitutional foundation, no one (least of all the five conservative Supreme Court justices) can reasonably object to my plans.

Can they?

DOUG PATTERSON

Yakima

A case for legalese

To the editor -- The U.S. Supreme Court upholding the right to own guns in the Washington, D.C., case clearly demonstrates why the nation is overwhelmed by legalese.

It is a puzzle how Washington, D.C., became an entity when Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive legislation over the area of 10 square miles to be the federal government. The Second Amendment uses the word state, not U.S. government, has the right to a militia. Most people forget the 13 colonies were giving up certain powers to the federal government but wanted to keep certain powers for themselves when the 13 colonies became states, which is the reason for the first 10 amendments.

The opinion was a 5 to 4 decision and it took 64 pages to explain the majority opinion plus minority opinions, and these judges graduated from law schools.

I rest my case.

LESLIE FLEMING

Yakima 

Immoral hypocrisy

To the editor -- In my 50 years on this planet, I continue to be amazed by people who claim to be Christian and then speak uneducated, hateful interpretations of God and the Bible. It is the height of hypocrisy and spiritually immoral to judge homosexuality using antiquated biblical misinterpretation to support that judgment. If you choose to interpret the Bible literally -- fine. However, to do so means that you must also condemn and judge people with disabilities, women who speak when not spoken to, adulterers, etc., etc., etc. These things are all listed in the Bible as abominations.

As a thinking human being who God made gay, I find this type of discriminatory judgment morally reprehensible and intellectually insulting. The negativity that this creates is doing far more harm to this planet than marriage between two consenting adults ever will. As I've been told, Satan can be very clever.

ROBERT SHERWOOD

Yakima

Be reponsible owner

To the editor -- Recently, my daughter rescued a thin, hungry, worm-infested, unaltered, yet beautiful dog that had been hanging around her work and eating out of the garbage for over two weeks.

She put a "Found" ad on a popular Web site, listed the animal for adoption with a local no-kill animal rescue and agreed to foster the dog at her home because the foster homes for the rescue are full. Then, a week later, after having been notified that someone had taken the dog in, the owner showed up at my daughter's work demanding the return of the animal, claiming that my daughter had stolen the dog from her property (which is miles from where my daughter works). Not caring for the animal and then accusing a caring animal lover of a crime is truly pathetic!

Please, if you have an animal you cannot or choose not to care for any longer for any reason, please contact any of the no-kill shelters in the Yakima/Tri-City areas. Neglecting, dumping them off, or ignoring the fact that they have not been home in over three weeks, is cruel and unfair -- you took them in, find, or help find to, them a new home!

ROBERTA LUCAS

Yakima