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.
