Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The nugget. (Sisters, Or.) 1994-current | View Entire Issue (March 28, 2018)
2 Wednesday, March 28, 2018 The Nugget Newspaper, Sisters, Oregon O P I N I O N Editorial… Nobody is coming for your guns? Proponents of “common-sense gun reforms” repeatedly assure legal firearm own- ers that “nobody is coming for your guns.” If they are sincere, those gun reform proponents should publicly disavow Oregon Initiative Petition 43 (formerly IP 42) — because it does come for the guns, with a very heavy hand. Filed by an interfaith religious group in Portland, the initiative — if it were to make it to the ballot and pass — would ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” (including those used in most modern hand- guns). It would also require gun owners to surrender their rifles and magazines or face felony charges. “If qualified,” an owner could “register” their firearm or magazine. However, under the language of the initiative, it would be illegal to take either to the local shooting areas to use them. In other words, the State will confiscate or render unusable your legally acquired property, and if you don’t comply you would be subject to being adjudicated a felon. Thousands of law-abiding Oregonians — many of them your friends and neighbors — would be declared outlaws, criminals. That should alarm any Oregonian, any American, regardless of how you feel about firearms. This misbegotten initiative validates the most extreme rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, pushing firearms owners and gun- rights advocates farther into a corner. It con- firms the suspicion that many gun owners hold that “gun reform” or “gun-safety regulation” is a stalking horse for those whose real agenda is disarming law-abiding Americans — for law- abiding citizens are the only ones who would ever conform to such a draconian decree. And since it targets the law-abiding, the initiative would do nothing at all to make anyone safer. Moves like this serve only to further polar- ize an already fraught discussion, eroding potential common ground between people of good faith who could — and must — come together to find holistic solutions to the scourge of mass shootings. The initiative has a long haul to make it to the ballot, and would certainly face signifi- cant constitutional challenges were it to pass. But merely by floating it, the petitioners have undermined the assurances of reformers and confirmed the worst suspicions of Second Amendment advocates. Initiative Petition 43 should be soundly rejected before it ever hits a ballot — by both gun-rights advocates and by serious advocates of good-faith reform of firearms regulations. Jim Cornelius Editor in Chief Letters to the Editor… The Nugget welcomes contributions from its readers, which must include the writer’s name, address and phone number. Let- ters to the Editor is an open forum for the community and contains unsolicited opinions not necessarily shared by the Editor. The Nugget reserves the right to edit, omit, respond or ask for a response to letters submitted to the Editor. Letters should be no longer than 300 words. Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned. The deadline for all letters is noon Monday. To the Editor: On Wednesday, March 14, students across the country protested “lack of gun control leg- islation.” As an American student I am deeply heartbroken for the families and communities experiencing the aftermath of mass school shootings and naturally think about how to contend with such a complex problem. Yes, stopping mass shootings is a complex issue. One of the solutions proposed is raising the possession age to 21 which not only overlooks the shootings committed by college-age stu- dents but neglects the fact that many kids have access to firearms before turning 18 via family and friends. Another suggestion is stricter background checks, which doesn’t do any good if the per- petrator is not on file for any previous criminal activities: felonies, drug use or addiction, is an alien, convicted for domestic assault or subject See LETTERS on page 14 Sisters Weather Forecast Courtesy of the National Weather Service, Pendleton, Oregon Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Mostly Cloudy Mostly Sunny Partly Sunny Mostly Sunny Partly Sunny Partly Sunny 53/30 58/31 58/30 55/27 53/27 52/38 The Nugget Newspaper, LLC Website: www.nuggetnews.com 442 E. Main Ave., P.O. Box 698, Sisters, Oregon 97759 Tel: 541-549-9941 | Fax: 541-549-9940 | editor@nuggetnews.com Postmaster: Send address changes to The Nugget Newspaper, P.O. Box 698, Sisters, OR 97759. Third Class Postage Paid at Sisters, Oregon. Editor in Chief: Jim Cornelius Production Manager: Leith Easterling Classifieds & Circulation: Teresa Mahnken Graphic Design: Jess Draper Community Marketing Partners: Patti Jo Beal & Vicki Curlett Accounting: Erin Bordonaro Proofreader: Pete Rathbun Owner: J. Louis Mullen The Nugget is mailed to residents within the Sisters School District; subscriptions are available outside delivery area. Third-class postage: one year, $45; six months (or less), $25. First-class postage: one year, $85; six months, $55. Published Weekly. ©2018 The Nugget Newspaper, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. All advertising which appears in The Nugget is the property of The Nugget and may not be used without explicit permission. The Nugget Newspaper, Inc. assumes no liability or responsibility for information contained in advertisements, articles, stories, lists, calendar etc. within this publication. All submissions to The Nugget Newspaper will be treated as uncondition- ally assigned for publication and copyrighting purposes and subject to The Nugget Newspaper’s unrestricted right to edit and comment editorially, that all rights are currently available, and that the material in no way infringes upon the rights of any person. The publisher assumes no responsibility for return or safety of artwork, photos, or manuscripts. Jonah Goldberg Over the last 18 months the president has said and done a number of things that warranted dissent from Republicans — not just from party leaders, but from rank-and-file legislators, pundits and other commen- tators. But the dogs did not bark, opting to stay silent. We need not take up too much space quibbling over specifics. All one need do is play the “What if Obama said this?” game to see that the moral arc of the GOP has bent toward President Trump. Then, a few weeks ago, the president proposed sweeping steel and alu- minum tariffs and heaped praise on the benefits of trade wars. Suddenly, Congress and much of the conservative commentariat rose up in protest. Trump’s top economic advisor, Gary Cohn, who reportedly almost resigned last summer over the presi- dent’s morally equivocating response to a neo-Nazi rally, apparently found tariffs a nobler hill to die on. As a free-trader, I wel- come this response. But just imagine you’re a run-of- the-mill Democratic con- gressional candidate look- ing to unseat a Republican who never spoke up about Trump’s “shithole coun- tries” remark, the unfolding drama over Stormy Daniels, Trump’s endorsement of Roy Moore, his attacks on the First Amendment or his flirtation with cutting off aid to hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico because of a spat with the mayor of San Juan. How easy it would be to say: “My opponent never objected to these things, but when Trump tried to save manufacturing jobs, he leapt to his feet to protest at the bidding of the same fat-cat free-traders and glo- balist big businesses that outsourced so many of your jobs. My opponent is OK with the president endors- ing and campaigning for an accused child molester, but he will fight to the death to keep cheap Chinese steel from pouring into this country.” Yes, it’s a dumb eco- nomic argument—steel tariffs would cost more American manufacturing jobs than they’d save—but it’s a great political one. This is just one illus- tration of the Republican dilemma. The president divides the right while he unifies the left. Praise Trump on his controver- sial statements and you risk alienating suburban Republicans, particularly women. Criticize Trump and you risk not only his wrath, but also the wrath of the portion of his base that demands rhetorical fealty to Trump in all things. Voters don’t judge par- ties on their lists of princi- ples, but on their real-world priorities. Not objecting to something sends as clear a signal as objecting does. It’s fun to listen to Republicans vent off the record, but most Americans don’t get to hear any of that. They do hear the silence, however. And so does Trump. Over the weekend, the pres- ident floated a fairly obvi- ous trial balloon, tweeting, “The Mueller probe should never have been started,” and calling it, in all caps, a “WITCH HUNT!” It’s not shocking that the president would want to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, but he has never attacked him directly before. The usual suspects cheered on Trump, while most of the party was silent. One of the few excep- tions was Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said fir- ing Mueller would be the “beginning of the end of his presidency.” House Speaker Paul Ryan offered a lack- luster response through a spokesperson: “Mr. Mueller and his team should be able to do their job.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said ... nothing. O f f t h e r e c o r d , Republicans often say t h e y ’ r e a f r a i d Tr u m p responds to being told not to do something by doing it out of spite. That’s a real con- cern. But it’s not an excuse. If Trump does fire Mueller and a constitutional crisis ensues, the previ- ously silent, suddenly angry Republicans will be asked why they’re speaking up now. That is, if they speak up at all. © 2018 Tribune Content Agency, LLC Opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer and are not necessarily shared by the Editor or The Nugget Newspaper.
