Give me feed back on my letter to the Editor

[SMLE]

I just wrote this, but have not yet sent it. I'm looking for constructive criticism, here. If I'm off base, just let me know and tell me why/how.

Liberty and Hypocrisy
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

Editor;

Many so-called "civil libertarians" are calling for equal rights for homosexuals to be legally married. Personally I see nothing wrong with this. What bothers me greatly is the hypocrisy of these same "civil libertarians" over other rights clearly enumerated in the United States Constitution. These people will fight to the death for the argument that "The People" in the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments means each and every individual citizen, but then will try to tell you that "The People" in the Second Amendment, means the States and their respective National Guards. Suggest that "Free Speech" is a collective right and they will go nuts. There is nothing in the US Constitution that specifically gives homosexuals the right to be legally married, but there IS an explicit statement of the right to be armed.

Another example of hypocrisy among these so-called "civil libertarians" is their frequent claims that the Government is corrupt and has no respect for Citizen's rights under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. But THEN, they will tell you that this same Government is the only entity who can be trusted with guns! There is a poster I have seen in the University area that depicts a heavily armed Police Officer menacing a homeless woman and her small child. The implication is clear; the Police are thugs who are more than happy to bust the heads of innocent citizens. But I'm willing to bet that the artist who drew that poster will look me in the eye and tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun and that I don't need one because we have the Police to protect us! The same Police she/he insinuates are nothing more than racist thugs are the same Police who will magically appear the instant she/he dials 911 and save her/him from harm. These so-called "civil libertarians" want you to believe thing like this; "The Police are racist, and routinely mistreat minorities, but African Americans don't need guns because the Police will protect them." Or; "The Police are homophobes and routinely mistreat homosexuals, but homosexuals don't need guns because the Police will protect them."

You can not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights you support. It is an all or nothing proposition. You either support ALL of the Bill of Rights for ALL people, or you support tyranny. The choice is Your's, choose wisely.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Good points, but shorten it. Editors like brevity.

 

[Greg L]

Drop the second paragraph entirely. Chances are better that it will be published if it is short.

Greg

 

[Standing Wolf]

You can not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights you support. It is an all or nothing proposition. You either support ALL of the Bill of Rights for ALL people, or you support tyranny. The choice is Your's, choose wisely.

I'd be more inclined to say something along the lines of the Bill of Rights isn't a cafeteria rather than "all or nothing proposition," and especially since it's not a proposition at all, but the law of the land.

"Yours" isn't a proper noun, nor does it include an apostrophe.

Speaking strictly as a guy who's made his living as a writer and editor for nearly forty years: what you've got is a good start. Now you need to cut it in half. Cutting is the hard part.

 

[SMLE]

How about this?

Editor;

Many so-called "civil libertarians" are calling for equal rights for homosexuals to be legally married. Personally I see nothing wrong with this. What bothers me greatly is the hypocrisy of these same "civil libertarians" over other rights clearly enumerated in the United States Constitution. These people will fight to the death for the argument that "The People" in the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments means each and every individual citizen, but then will try to tell you that "The People" in the Second Amendment, means the States and their respective National Guards. Suggest that "Free Speech" is a collective right and they will go nuts. There is nothing in the US Constitution that specifically gives homosexuals the right to be legally married, but there IS an explicit statement of the right to be armed.

You can not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights you support, it is not like a cafeteria where you only take what you like.. You either support ALL of the Bill of Rights for ALL people, or you support tyranny. The choice is yours, choose wisely.

 

[Seminole]

Much better. Let us know if it gets published.

 

[jimpeel]

The Bill of Rights is not a Smorgasbord menu from which you choose what you like and discard the rest.

 

[Waitone]

Read the language in each of th Amendments to the constitution.

The language in the second amendment is more restrictive than the first amendment.

E.g.
==First Amendment--"congress shall make no law. . ."

==Second Amendment--". . . shall not be infringed."

Yet, the First Amendment is the altar before which we all bow. Also the first amendment is a conglomeration of 5 prohibitions, first in line. Second amendment sits there by its lonesome with the language most restrictive to the government.

Call your target newspaper and ask what its word limit on letters to the editor.

Make it snappy, memorable, and right to the point.

Keep us alerted.

 

[Highland Ranger]

My Dad lives in NYC - retired, he manages to get something published in the News or the Post every few months - the key is BREVITY.

Sum up what you want to say in one sound byte sentence; if it's creative, it'll get in.