Reader takes aim at columnist

To the editor:
It is bad enough that Jay County conservatives have to put up with the race baiting liberal rants of Leonard Pitts, now we also have to put up with the inane left-wing ravings of John Krull.
In one article he explodes with righteous indignation that some appellate court judge will not drop out of a case because he knows one of the parties. We are told that this will undermine both the integrity of the Court and the rule of law.
But then we learn the real truth.
Krull tells us the four remaining judges will be divided 2-2 and that the tie will leave the lower court ruling he prefers in place. The fact that he knows how this judge would vote based on his judicial philosophy and/or politics is proof that his relationship with one of the parties would not influence his vote.
And the fact that the Court would be split 3-2 based on politics or judicial philosophy is also proof that at least two, if not five, judges are basing their decision on politics instead of the law and as such have no integrity or respect for the rule of law.
Krull wrote several columns on gun control that prove that he has no clue about the Constitution, the Second Amendment, Supreme Court Decisions, American History, the NRA, gun owners, current events or common sense.
His statement that “even as some of the victims breathed their last … sympathetic souls at the NRA … were telling us how to respond to this gun-related tragedy” is patently false. The NRA never responds to a tragedy in less than 24 hours out of respect for the victims. It was the gun haters in the media and on the floor of Congress who were calling for gun bans while the shooting at the Navy Yard was still going on.
While Krull called this a “heavily armed military facility”, the truth is that except for the guards at the gate most stateside military facilities are safely among the gun free zones.
He blathers on about “we can’t talk about guns.” But the NRA and gun owners have been talking about guns and real gun safety for 100 years while Krull’s idea of talking is for anti-gunners to make outrageous demands and gun owners to roll over and agree. In light of the weapons used in this shooting, one wonders what he would ban since the Supreme Court says you can’t ban handguns and the gun haters say they don’t want to ban shotguns.
“Honoring reality isn’t a big part of the gun lobbies agenda. Protecting record weapons sales and profits is.”
You have to love someone who accuses someone else of lying with a lie.
The NRA’s number one agenda is trying to correct misinformation. And the NRA’s primary source of funding is memberships and grass root donations. Industry donations are a very small part of their funding. And the record sales are due to the constant threat of gun bans.
Krull talks about the NRA’s “strange interpretation of the The Second Amendment, which just happens to match that of the U.S. Supreme Court.
He says, “They argue, for example, that the language in the Second Amendment tying the right to bear arms to militia service and being well-regulated doesn’t mean anything.”
In fact the NRA says that this phrase is an explanation for the existence of the right to bear arms, however it does not begin with the word “if” that Krull would like to see there. Likewise “well-regulated” modifies the word militia, not the right to bear arms. And in the military usage of the time it meant well-trained or disciplined and not the regulation of firearms.
He also states that the Founders would have never used the military term “to bear arms” “to describe possession of weapons for personal protection”. He must find it strange that the Indiana Constitution guarantees the “right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”
He insists on a discussion about guns, but how do you have a reasonable discussion with someone who doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about.
Stephen Erwin
Portland[[In-content Ad]]