by Lynn Mandaville
Back in April of this year there was a nationwide recall of chopped romaine lettuce because of the deaths of several people and the illnesses of many others due to e-coli contamination. Bagged, chopped romaine was taken from supermarket shelves and, I assume, destroyed, so that no more people would be harmed by the contaminated lettuce. Ultimately, the contamination was traced to a farm or farms in Yuma, AZ, where tainted irrigation water was found to blame.
Lovers of romaine lettuce had to wait a few months before the contamination was addressed and a new crop was planted and harvested and sent out to stores before we could enjoy it again. We trusted that produce from the Yuma area was going to be fine hereafter, thanks to the CDC and FDA doing their respective jobs to protect consumers.
This week, once again, no matter which grocery store or supermarket I go to, the produce section has no romaine lettuce. Not a leaf.
It seems that over the past few weeks 32 or more people in 12 states have been made sick from e-coli contamination found in their romaine lettuce, so the CDC has issued a new warning about this dangerous health hazard. This warning includes the removal and discarding of all romaine lettuce nationwide — not just the chopped and bagged items, but full heads, too — while the source of the contamination is located. Meanwhile, restaurants and home food preparers must wait until the next crop of romaine comes to harvest before romaine may once again be enjoyed by salad lovers.
This seems like a pretty good system of protection for the American citizenry from public health hazards. Early warning and action serve to prevent needless deaths from lethal bacteria in our food. We can’t expect that correcting one source of tainting will protect us from all sources, but we can be fairly certain that there are government agencies looking out for our welfare, particularly where widespread threats to our health and safety are concerned.
So as we prepare ourselves mentally for the minor inconvenience of a few weeks without our favorite lettuce, my eldest son, Nick, asked me, rhetorically, why the CDC can’t do something about the epidemic of gun violence in America. The government is willing and able to step in when our food threatens to harm us, but not, apparently, where fire arms and bullets are concerned.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% of Americans favor some form of legislation to curb gun violence. They don’t favor repealing the Second Amendment, they favor legislation that will lessen the chances that guns will fall into the hands of those most likely to use them to injure or kill themselves or other people.
The midterms are now over. There are many new folks representing us in our state houses and in Congress. Now is an opportune time to let them know, if you are one of that 70%, that it is time to get down to the business of serving the people who elected them, and seeing that the people’s will is done, not the will of the NRA or the gun manufacturers or the gun lobby, but the will of the people.
For those who say that the nebulous, mysterious left only wants to see the Second Amendment repealed, I respectfully say horse apples. Changing the Constitution is not a simple process. Contrary to the beliefs of our president, the Constitution is a fairly ironclad document, structured to require a specific and time-consuming process involving the voices of the people to add or subtract amendments.
As an example, only this year did the Equal Rights Amendment get the ratification of the 37th out of 38 states required to adopt that amendment. And it took 50 years to get this far! So to those who fear a quick and easy death to Amendment Two, I say don’t get your panties in a bunch. Let’s see if clear, uncorrupted senators and representatives can hammer out some realistic, common sense legislation to address our unnatural attachment to the weapons that make it so scary to go to school, or the movies, or the mall, or a night club, or sight-seeing, or whatever other mainstream, ordinary, run-of-the-mill activity we used to undertake without a single thought to being shot.
After another week of numerous senseless shootings, and at a time of year when suicides climb in number, it would be something to be truly thankful for, and something to cheer about.
Based on your logic and the history of dangerous speech leading to horrible consequences, your right to free speech would be limited to the quill pen, manual printing press and human voice since those were the only means of conveying free speech at the time The Constitution was written. Free speech wouldn’t apply to dangerously efficient media like the internet, typewriters, television or film etc. Likewise, all gun owners would have their freedoms traded in for flintlock muskets. Many of us, including this writer would also love for Mr. Trump to get kicked off Twitter permanently. His late night twitter rants would be better for all of us if it were sent by horseback messenger to the nearest town crier.
True Liberty is uncertain, scary and sometimes dangerous. The left loves to hear Government tell everyone they are going to be fine and that the Government is going to take care of everything, keep us all safe from tainted lettuce and crazy people. Unfortunately, those words of comfort are a lie proven by tainted lettuce and the horror of Parkland. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, the head of the commission that investigated this tragedy, after reviewing the facts and the ineffectiveness/utter failure of three levels of law enforcement now supports allowing willing teachers to be armed.
The reason he does this is because the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good person with one. Wayne LaPierre, was laughed at and ridiculed by the leftist media for saying this. It isn’t the first time people have been attacked for telling the truth even when it is not popular opinion.
Instead of Government focusing its efforts on nonsense like more gun laws and taking dangerous things away from free people, lets enforce the laws we already have instead. Instead of wasting resources worrying about millions of totally innocent, law abiding gun owners enjoying liberty guaranteed by The Constitution. Instead, lets ask Government to focus on properly identifying people with serious mental problems, getting them help and getting them away from society again. Lets be honest with ourselves and make schools safer by protecting the precious lives inside with something more like we see at a courthouse or a bank than a library. Government can do that and spend more resources keeping the sewage off of our lettuce.
The Ratification period, enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Carter expired at the end of June 1982.
Just another example of how the “the nebulous, mysterious left” keeps wanting to change the rules when their agenda fails. And even before that a few states rescinded their approval, and yet are still counted as part of the thirty seven mentioned above.
I agree the firearm opponents don’t want to repeal the 2nd , they just want to take our firearms.
They keep trying and if wasn’t for the NRA, and firearm manufacturers. We firearm owners could of lost our firearms years ago.
This responsible legislation has yet to appear. What has been rearing it’s ugly head is banning firearms based on looks. style, capacity, or action operation.
Doing these things solves little or nothing except remove firearms from the law biding citizens.
Of course, that was always the plan..the 70 % you speak of really have no idea that the persons wanting this know how to circumvente the Constitution to achieve their goal.
The government is able to remove and ban the sale of food products…which most are happy with. Sadly throwing tomatoes and apples at criminals . Guess our fate rests in what the 70% does.
It’s odd how so many call for liberty and freedom, while at the same time not wanting freedom for a woman to make decisions about her reproduction rights. Or football players to kneel during the song. These same folks largely opposed the rights of people to marry whom they love, and ingest herbs. Those last efforts failed, or are failing. The people want more gun control than what we have now. But the NRA and the congressmen they’ve hired to do their bidding do not. This irony should be plain to anyone, and Ms. Mandeville is right to point it out.
I keep hearing comments about about the good and law abiding gun owners worrying about the government taking away their guns. No one is trying to take away the guns of the “millions of totally innocent law abiding gun owners enjoying liberty guaranteed by The Constitution”.
If these millions are truly concerned about enjoying the liberties guaranteed by The Constitution, why aren’t THEY standing up and demanding changes to our gun laws? The Constitution doesn’t guarantee liberties only to gun owners. The population as a whole should have the liberty to send their children to school, go to their church (or not), go to a concert or restaurant without worrying that someone with a mental problem, marital problem, or just plain pissed off at someone may open fire with a gun. I’m sure none of the “millions” would just sit by if it happened to be a member of their family or even a very close friend who was injured or killed by a gun. They would want to know what right a person in that state of mind had to be in possession of a gun.
What would be wrong with denying gun ownership to someone convicted of a violent crime or domestic abuse? What would be wrong with temporarily taking away guns from a person who has a protective order against them. Keep in mind, both males and females could be in this category. How would you feel if you had a protection order against someone because you feared for your safety and knew they had a weapon or small arsenal? I don’t think you would like it if a police officer or judge told you to just don’t worry and depend on The Constitution to keep you safe.
Come on you “Millions” of good people with guns. Who is going to be first to stand up and protect our population.
Ms Brewer,
To get a weapon from a gun dealer, you must pass a background check. I recently went to a dealer to buy a compact pistol. At the counter were two people ahead of me wanting to buy long guns (shotguns) They presented their information on a federal form and the salesman sent it in. Both were denied, for whatever reason. I stood there with my form completed and a background check was done on me. It was approved as I knew I would be because I have a CPL and they take it away if you violate the regulations.
I understand your frustration. I don’t wish to ever see anyone harmed by any object used in violence upon another. A firearm is an inanimate object, just like many potential weapons used to kill (hammers, knives, automobiles, etc.). If all the laws were followed and enforced, we probably would have many less deaths per year. But many are given many chances to redeem themselves and never do. Liberal judges want to give them “another” chance. The kid that killed so many at Stoneman-Douglas high school had a rap sheet and was a known menace as a mentally disturbed young man. He should have been in a mental hospital getting help.
Everyone says they want changes, the devil is in the details and not violating the 2nd amendment. I don’t believe there will ever be agreement on how it should proceed.
Re: Tread’s remarks: I worked closely with seven judges on criminal matters in my county. I got to know them well enough to know their political leanings. Some were dems, so were repubs. I saw both harsh sentencing and lenient ones over the years. The dems could be just as harsh. The repubs could be just as lenient. There are a lot of factors that go into sentencing. Maybe my county has an exceptional bench of judges. My experience in other counties is not broad enough to compare. But I saw plenty of “liberal” judges hammer convicted felons. And I saw due lenience, when appropriates, from”conservative” judges. This is one person’s observations, but it is made with hundreds of cases over the years.