Bush's Pardons: Guns Out of Control

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Dear Bonnie, My name is Megan and I am in eighth grade and go to a middle school, in my social studies class yesterday we talked about your article on bush’s pardon: guns out of control. You have a very strong opinion and you made me think I read your article over and over again thinking about it and writing stuff down. I have done some research and would like to say I think your article was incomplete and to short to establish any information to back yourself up. One issue I would like to address is your comment about bush being the worst to leave us with a heap of garbage but no where in your article does it state what garbage was left behind to me that says that already you don’t have enofe information to back yourself up. I would really like to know what trash he has left behind. I also would like to point out your comment about Barrack Obama truly he is not yet in charge of us so no one really knows if he will be a good president or not but giving somebody a chance can prove many things. You also say in this article about bush parding 14 people with a variety of crime no where in your article do you say what crimes and any of the names. you did not give me enofe information as a reader on the pardons for me to believe what you are saying is true plus I think your 14 pardons was a little bit far fetched. I have read many letters written by people and notice they leave with the satisfaction of enofe information to back them selves up. Please comment back I would love to know some more information about your article so as a reader I can judge your article on if I as a reader had enofe information to believe what you are saying. One other thing is this is nothing against you but as reader and don’t wont to hear the writer saying we will bid him a not so fond farewell to me that is a matter of opinion not something that should be put in a paper seen by a lot of Americans. Your opinion should be kept to yourself unless dangerous or harmful to your health or another’s.
Signed, Megan

Megan of OR 8:59PM December 09, 2008

I know, you know, we all know how truly terrible guns are. I mean, holy cow, saving millions of lives a year, protecting children and women. The horror!
I know, people are also killed by guns, but let's face it, the benefits of guns outweight the cons of guns. Also, let's face the fact that this article isn't really about the environment, it's really about your elitist view of firearms and their "evil."
I'm not going to say much more, except, what is the first things oppresive dictatorships do upon coming into power? Take away people's guns...I wonder why. Oh yeah, because they know what they're doing and how to run a country!

Collin Dow of OR 11:01PM December 06, 2008

please refer to comments at " sprawl is killing hunting " by john the hunter.

john the hunter of FL 12:08PM December 05, 2008

Al Gore isn't a scientist. Neither is he an intellgent man. I watched him do and say NOTHING while VP. Seems he 'got religion', a la global warming. Sounds like the old proverb about the emptiest drum making the biggest sound? He can't even figure out that the overwhelming overpopulation of this earth by our species is the most important negative impact today. How about sending birth control pills with every shipment of food to Third World countries? Why not? Want to understand the real issues here, read Crichton's novel: State of Fear. In addition to an interesting plot, he actually has pages of scientific studies that contradict the Leftist PC claims that we can save the earth. Go ahead, and when you eat any food, as another poster mentioned, remember that there is always a price, be it eagles, coyotes, or human for the tomato on your table. Let the judicial system deal with more serious crimes, like the ones that will be committed in the next four years!

ChristmasTree of NY 12:22PM December 04, 2008

"The EPA has never done any testing on DDT showing it to be carcinogenic... The overwhelming evidence is that DDT is harmless to humans."
Maybe this means it's time to do more research. How about this: if you believe it's so safe why don't you sprinkle DDT on your dinner every day for a year and then get back to us with your results. Put your carcinogen where your mouth is?

Kang of WI 12:28PM December 03, 2008

Let's see--Clinton pardoned how many and what kind of unsavory characters? And Bush is evil for pardoning some farmer who accidentally killed two bald eagles. While I don't really like killing bald eagles, and yes, the population here has rebounded immensely since the DDT ban, it just ain't in the same category as many of the Clinton pardons--or even better, that ultimate pardon for Hillary when she was found innocent of insider trading in cattle futures. Please, Bonnie, don't display such pathetic discourse. You are supposed to have something of worth to say....plus it really does embarrass us as women when women commentators make such inane arguments. Hate to add any fuel to outdated theories, right?

MontanaMountainWoman of MT 11:22PM December 02, 2008

The EPA has never done any testing on DDT showing it to be carcinogenic... The overwhelming evidence is that DDT is harmless to humans. If you read my previous posts you can verify that DDT has indeed saved millions of lives and its ban is costing a million lives a year. The ban was simple political hysteria - Kinda like the current Global Warming panic.
Suggest you google "100 things you should know about DDT". All I00 facts have footnotes. There are dozens of other sites that have no ax to grind on the issue. "The Lies of Rachel Carson" is another good place to look. It is interesting to note that Ms. Carson was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people - Way to go Rachel... Guess you didn't know BS could kill.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 8:38PM December 01, 2008

Many of the prior comments have commented on the apparent un-harmful effects of ddt, and the proven benefits to them. This may be the case in your own personal study, but the EPA lists the risks of this being a probable human carcinogen, damaging to the liver, temporarily damaging to the nervous system, reduction of/damage of reproductive success, and possible liver cancer. The substance itself takes 15 years to deteriorate, and rampantly contaminates our Great Lakes.
With the EPA clearly stating ddt to be a potential harm to human life, how can you claim it to be acceptable? Do the beneficial uses of ddt outweigh the destructive?

Curiosity of MI 7:29PM December 01, 2008

Antlers are a clue... Do you wear a pair when you spade your humus pile?
Too bad you can't refute the truth of what I say - but that's ok - A sense of humor can be a sign of common sense - in your case probably dormant, but nonetheless, yearning to struggle toward the light.
It's good that we can have these little talks...

R.L. Schaefer of CA 5:28PM December 01, 2008

I don't imagine the goal of most environmentally conscious individuals is a sustainable existence in a cave.
"intolerant dogma of Environmentalism"
"usual rantings of Neo-Pagan Environmentalists"
So, are those designations for anyone who recycles or just for the ones who run around wooded clearings on the solstice wearing antlers?

AliLa of PA 2:21PM December 01, 2008