LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: More than Tradition

To the Editor: Apart from being highly illogical, this argument exposes that Mr. Van Haaften (a freshman at the Dental School) is indeed new to this campus. Had he been here longer, he would have known that no Penn student could even conceive of spending their hard-earned money to watch an 0-8(ACC), 10-10(overall) basketball team succeed once again in eroding their image as a basketball powerhouse. Obviously, anyone with a "clue" would choose to watch the Quakers become the first Ivy League team to go three straight seasons undefeated. There are countless reasons as to why the Palestra is regarded as the mecca of college basketball. In addition to being the arena where our men's basketball team continues their historic season by dominating the rest of the Ivy League and maintaining their prominence in the national spotlight, the Palestra has witnessed many greats (like Wilt Chamberlain) begin their journey to stardom, been home to many championship teams, and has hosted more visiting teams, games, and NCAA Tournaments than any other sports arena. Even Rick Pitino brought his 1992 University of Kentucky team to the Palestra and hailed it as a truly unique arena rich in tradition and history. Although we could go on and on with more evidence of the Palestra's significance, we will simply invite Mr. Van Haaften to take a walk to the Palestra and study the plethora of pictures adorning the halls which clearly depict the numerous historical events and people who have graced the arena's court. Actually, we find it quite ironic that Mr. Van Haaften (a University of Michigan alumnus) would also tell the Penn community that we need "to find out what real college basketball is all about" and to get "a real basketball team." Does the score 64-62 mean anything to you, you Big Ten loser? So, Mr. Van Haaften, the next time you attempt to use your deficient Michigan education to attack Penn's basketball heroes and our proud Ivy League tradition, make sure that your aim is true. Until then, stick to mastering simple concepts like "Michigan sucks." Oner Khera College '94 Jovin Lazatin College '94 Not Really Graffiti To the Editor: In Richard L. Ahrens letter to the editor ("Disgraceful," DP 2/3/95), I was called a number of unflattering epithets including "moronic perpetrator" and "drunken freshman." His whiney anger directed toward the so called graffiti in the quad is a bit overzealous considering that the spray paint is actually shaving cream and the drunken freshmen were in fact sober seniors. Had Mr. Ahrens spent more time away from his beloved quadrangle perhaps he would have noted that the incident was all done in good, clean fun on Mischief Night, Oct. 30th. My personal suggestion to Mr. Ahren is that instead of writing scathing letters to the editor and placing blame on random freshmen and the University's Facilities Management, he should do something constructive. If he would like to see "immediate steps" perhaps he should take to the offending "witty inscription" with a bucket of hot water and a good throwing arm. Barring that, he can chill out and wait for the rain to take care of it. Samantha Smith College '95 Be Human To the Editor: In Jeremy Hildreth's rejoinder to his critics ("Haiti -- the Aftermath" DP 1/30/95), he states that he is not a racist. Rather, what he makes clear to all is that he is a sociopath. He writes: "What great camaraderie can you feel with someone you've never met, and how deeply can you care if he or she lives or dies?" This candid statement does much to illustrate how little separates those who vehemently disavow their responsibility to others from those who actually perpetrate the crimes against humanity in Haiti. (Or from those who sell families homes on radioactive landfills, to provide Hildreth -- a real estate major -- with a more proximate example.) Thankfully, the vast majority of us can still identify with strangers by virtue of our shared humanity. Referring to Haiti's recent history, he states naively that, "[We] personally have nothing to do with it?" Unfortunately, we, as U.S. citizens, certainly do, both politically and economically. Hildreth, however, chooses to dismiss any honest attempt to come to terms with the U.S.'s role in the development of the Haitian crisis as guilt-mongering. Karim Tiro History graduate student Dry Up the Supply To the Editor: The vast majority of Americans do not understand the meaning or application of the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association (NRA) sedulously fosters misinterpretation of the amendment and one must conclude intentionally publishes such misinformation since its highpriced counsel surely knows better. The full text of the Second Amendment reads: "A wellregulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on it many times. In United States vs Cruickshank (1876) 92 U.S. 542, the court held that the right of bearing arms for lawful purposes is not a right granted by the Consitution and that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In United States vs Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 174, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that, "In interpreting and applying (the Second Amendment), the purpose of the amendment to assure continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the militia must be considered." In Lewis vs U.S. (1980) 445 U.S. 55, the U.S. Supreme Court restated this: "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms (convicted felon cannot lawfully possess firearms) do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" No federal court has ever held that the Second Amendment confers on the individual a right to bear arms. The courts have consistently adopted the "well-regulated militia" interpretation. The amendment is to be read as an assurance that the national government will not interfere with a state's militia. Beyond this, even Congress is not prohibited by the amendment from regulating firearms by the exercise of its interstate commerce powers. See Commonwealth vs Davis (1976) 369 Mass. 886 by a lower court. All legislative measures and city ordinances limiting or banning firearms have been upheld including a Morton Grove, Illinois ordinance prohibiting possession of handguns within municipal boundaries. The California law on assault weapons was upheld through the appeals court level and the NRA has abandoned plans to bring the measure before the Supreme Court. The NRA is aware, of course, that were it to lose an appeal to the highest court, that would put the quietus on its fundamental contention that the Constitution grants the individual the right to bear arms. A ban on assault weapons is not only constituional but studies show it would also be effective. A study done by the Cox Newspaper group analyzed 43,000 gun traces of weapons used in criminal activity in 1988 and 1989. An assault gun was found to be 20 times more likely to be used in a crime than a conventional firearm. While accounting for only 0.5 percent of all guns, assault weapons showed up on 10 percent of all traces. The argument has been made that criminals get their guns illegally, so ashy target legal sales? In 1988 the Oakland California Police Department found that only 12 percent of assault weapons seized in criminal activity were obtained illegally. Fully 88 percent of them were bought legally over the counter. The point is we must dry up the supply as much as possible. Many weapons that begin as legal sales get into criminal hands. Jim Senyszyn Highland Park, N.J.