Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, May 11, 2013

Letter: Firepower

May 11, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

I heard Wayne LaPierre remark at the NRA convention that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. How about making an effort to prevent bad men from acquiring firearms in the first place! I’m not naïve and I realize bad guys will probably acquire a weapon if they really want one, but why make it easy for them? I’m a gun owner and I even approve of having a concealed weapon if you are a law abiding citizen. But I don’t have a problem with expanded background check. If it would save just one life, it is worth the effort.

Mr. LaPierre confirms my belief that the NRA is nothing but a flunky for gun manufacturers. They don’t want any restrictions at all. The NRA continually brainwashes its members by perpetuating misinformation and keeping its members paranoid in believing that any kind of restriction is a step toward banning weapons. The NRA continually mentions the wishes of our Founding Fathers. Do you really think they had any concept of the firepower of future weapons? Their concept of a gun was a flintlock musket, which took ample time to fire and reload with new powder, assuming it was dry

I believe every law-abiding citizen has the right to own a weapon and protect his family. But there has got to be a better solution to this problem. Arming everyone and letting the good guys and bad shoot it out is just illogical to me!

Comments

75x55 11 months ago

No problem at all with keeping firearms away from 'bad men'. Or even 'bad people'.

Just as long as we keep knives, bricks, rocks, baseball bats, pieces of rebar or 2x4's or most any construction material, jars of flammable or acid liquid, cars/trucks/ATVs or other heavy wheeled items away from these 'bad people'....

Let's also make sure that 'bad people' are only smaller and weaker than 'good people', even the smallest children that are subject to victimization by 'bad people'....

Hmmm.... the "weapon" doesn't seem to be the real problem, now is it? More likely the problem is found in the dark flaws of the sinful human heart. Human's have been trying to 'outlaw' that for all of mankind's history, haven't they?

You know, sometimes I don't think a lot of these 'banning' people are capable of logical thinking. They didn't call Samuel Colt's invention a 'Peacemaker' for no reason.

0

kansas45 11 months, 1 week ago

Tuschkahouma......the last line of your previous comment has wrapped up your beliefs and feelings. Yes, we have heard of the Supremacy Clause and the laws recently passed may be overturned. But you don't get it do you? States are telling the federal government that enough is enough and we are telling you to back off. "Made to behave"....excuse me but who in the hell are you to tell me that I will be made to behave? Again, you just don't understand. With threats like that you only back up the beliefs of those you so strongly call idots and racists. That is what the 2nd amendment was designed for..to protect the people, who give the government power and not the other way around, from those exact threats of abuse of power. Yes, the states may lose in court, however notice will have been given to the federal level that they better come up with other options.

You speak so loud and strong of the racist people you have contact with, speak poorly of the NRA and those who disagree with your thinking. I believe one definition of a racist or bigot is a person with a closed mind to a particulat segment of a population who they feel they are superior to in intelligence or physical ability. Which, after reading your comments, pretty much describes you.

0

In_God_we_trust 11 months, 1 week ago

The 2nd amendment exists at the federal level and the state level. It is therefore unconstitutional (illegal) to make any gun control laws at those levels. We don't use government to limit rights at the federal or state level. They are rights that don't come from government, and therefore can not be limited by government. That is why we have laws in place at the government level against people's illegal actions; gun control laws seek to limit peoples rights, by saying you can not have this gun or that clip, which wrongly affects people who have done nothing wrong. Laws are in place now that punish wrong behavior (as it should be), like: Do not steal, do not murder, etc. God says it like this: 1. Love God with all your heart, all of your soul, all your mind, all your strength, all your might. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. We need to return to God and have respect for God to limit evil actions in people's hearts, not gun control.

0

Steven Gaudreau 11 months, 1 week ago

I still don't understand how the convicted felon in Ottowa got a gun. Did he not realize it was illegal and he was breaking the law by having a gun? If we had more laws, I'm sure this convicted felon would have filled out paperwork for a background check and been denied a gun therefore saving lives. Right? Does this scenerio sound realistic to the pass more law whackos?

0

Mike Ford 11 months, 1 week ago

I support gun rights and own guns and collect guns. I don't like the nra because for half of my lifetime they've politicized the gun issue in a facist kind of way and they seem oblivious to reality.

0

btsflk 11 months, 1 week ago

nra leadership are just salesmen for gun manufacturers

2

JJE007 11 months, 1 week ago

I'm not sure what's going on here.

tuschahouma, are you equating the advocating of gun rights with the NRA? Are you then saying that, because some NRA members in Missouri and Arkansas and other backward states are racists, that their goal is evil? What's your point?

Even though I am not an NRA member, I do support gun rights.

Also, I know that there are racists in all walks of life and in all organizations. I see them everywhere. I hear them everywhere.

Do you believe that because some who support the NRA are racist, that supporting gun rights are as evil as racism? Do you then believe that we should not be able to buy black powder and lead?

I'm not following your logic. Are you saying that because racists exist in an organization, that everyone in that organization is supporting racism...and that they are, therefore, wrong about everything they support? That sounds quite close to quintessentially racist thinking.

Can we try to separate out the good from the bad in our arguments?

2

bisky1 11 months, 1 week ago

one guy do not see how that blankets the rest of us. Like I said I work with these people they could care less they only want respect and for you to carry your fair share.

0

bisky1 11 months, 1 week ago

tuschkahouma, ya got any thing that could be a specific example of racism?

0

Brock Masters 11 months, 1 week ago

tusk - what is viterol? Is it like Geritol?

0

Mike Ford 11 months, 1 week ago

plantation comment....not racist at all....I see people who are insecure in dealing with the world that is not ward and beaver cleaver and go back to stereotypes and prejudices and when confronted by me go back to their old tried and true words. not very original. I lived in Louisiana for seven years and went back and forth between here and Mississippi for three decades. I know who these people are. Deny the racism I see firsthand. Don't own it. Reverse it on the people who are the targets of it. Pretty weak of you. Expected though. Explain the racist Obama billboard at Junction City on I-70. Explain the uncensored viterol I hear and see at gun shops and gun shows I go to and have done so for three decades. Liberals don't go to gun shops and shows do they? How wrong are you?

0

tomatogrower 11 months, 1 week ago

Those of you who do not want any limits on guns, do you agree with me that the mother who bought her 5 year old a gun and left him unattended with it, should be charged with child endangerment? I don't think she was, and I think the NRA would have a fit, if she was. This 5 year old is going to live with the guilt all his life, but the NRA will defend the rights of 5 year olds with guns. It's the mother's and probably the dad's fault, but the kids will pay. Bring about severe punishments for irresponsible owners of legal guns, and I might agree with you, but the NRA wants to arm everyone, felons and crazies alike. Of course we know why the former president of the NRA wants felons to own guns. His felon son is getting out of prison soon, and he wants to put another gun in his son's hands, so he can shoot at more cars.

2

bisky1 11 months, 1 week ago

tuschkahouma,I suspect you are a liberal who finds racism in someone saying pass the ketchup. I work with the people you are talking about every day, not a racist bone in the crowd. Today it is about character for us, the only people I see playing the race card is the liberal left. That is how you keep em on the plantation.

1

Mike Ford 11 months, 1 week ago

I don't see boogeyman.....I see rural people who don't think or exhibit the ability to observe the world objectively....it's all too easy to believe the hannity's and lapierres hook line and sinker. when discussions or issues go beyond nra or fox talking points rely on the fear that's always existed in segments of us population. use obsolete or irrelevant labels to color people much as irrational and paranoid people have since the salem witch trials. I saw the Obama Gun salesman poster with my own eyes. you can't run from that can you? you can't refute the crazy I heard at three or four gun shops between Joplin and Bella Vista, Arkansas. Keep ignoring the reality of how crazy the NRA and fear mongers are viewed and I'll keep reminding you. This posturing has nothing to actually do with the Second Amendment. It's simply a recruiting tool for the GOP, Tea Party, and Doomsday preppers who are intolerant of minorities. You can't refute what I physically witnessed this week.

0

George Lippencott 11 months, 1 week ago

Good point. If you are willing to limit my second amendment right to own a weapon than why do you resist limiting my fourth amendment right to be secure from "unreasonable" search?

I happen to believe that all of our rights have rational limits. Meaningful background checks and "stop and frisk" seem to be in that set.

How do you decide what to pick and choose?

0

Brock Masters 11 months, 1 week ago

Lets think about this for a minute. Do we really believe removing the individual sales exemption for background checks will have any significant result in Chicago, Detroit or DC?

If not then why do it? Why not really examine the problem and search for real solutions if the true goal is reducing crime and not disarming people?

Lets figure out why there are so many more gun deaths in Chicago than similar cities like Houston.

New York reduced gun violence by doing stop and frisks - that is getting guns and criminals off the streets. What solutions work and what ones don't?

You know what would get my attention is any politician or celebrity calling for gun bans to walk the walk. Give up their armed protection when asking me to give up mine. Joe Biden give up the automatic weapons that protect you and just use a shotgun.

2

fmrl 11 months, 1 week ago

The problem with background checks is that if the sheep accept that then they will accept registries and that will ultimately result in confiscations. The people need to keep themselves prepared for the possibility of tyranny. That's what the 2nd Amendment is about. Why is the government so interested in background checks? Do you really think they are concerned about our welfare? There are myriad things that suggest they are not.

1

Sgtduckyboy 11 months, 1 week ago

To Craig Tucker, part two. their idea of a flint lock was what EVERYONE HAD DUDE! If one side had automatics, the intent would have been the same, both sides are entitled automatics. If we are to protect ourself from our own govt (which is the intent), not hunting, we have to be able to arm ourself the same, or better. By them limiting us, they are in effect , disarming us. hard to shoot sonic missles with 22's, correct? You really need to think this through mister, You are falling ill to liberalitis.

0

Sgtduckyboy 11 months, 1 week ago

Craig Tucker, your statement itself is contradictory. We all know that every govt level that attempts to 'do good' always creates a system that actually 'limits' citizens rights. Not only that, but the controls set in, are always going to ill-affect someone. And that someone, or worse THOSE someones, could be disarmed due to a technical error in the background check since it isnt foolproof. That person(s), could then be killed because they brought a knife to a gunfight because of some unforseen technical glitch in his/her/their background check. So, you want a system to increase the depth of background checks to save even 1 life, but dont look at it such that, the increased system could, and will, displace someones rights and make them a victim. But so you know, I agree with background checks. I want to know the person near me, concealed, is a 'good guy' too. But, the big issue with every system we let the govt institute, its always rushed into place, there is no 'testing' or 'arbitrary' term to fine tune it. Big whig officials think it up, fund it, and execute it. That is why we have so much bureacracy in this country. So to sum it up, i agree with your intent. I disagree completely with your reason. It is ill-thought and just as dangerous as total gun bans. Because there is one more thing about these things, they always open the door for the next liberal to take it one step further. Well, we have had enough liberals taking things one step futher. Its time to stop the madness, regroup, reinstitute common sense and the constitution . we can clean up the mess we have first before making new laws that just jack up everything worse.

0

Mike Ford 11 months, 1 week ago

because we hunt with 32, 36, 48, and 54. cal long rifles. not the inline suburbanite blackpowder weak guns they sell at cabelas. wow you ignored all of the indicting truthful behavoir I witnessed in the ozarks and made some veiled implication about gun powder that didn't get past me. own your crazies.....don't try the nra flip it on the accusers nonsense. I've seen or heard it too many times in gun shops and on am radio.

0

Mike Ford 11 months, 1 week ago

having just been through NW Arkansas and Missouri in the last two days I can personally attest to how gullible segments of the population are to following the pied piper nature of the NRA expecially when people there make it publically known on bumper stickers and in gun shop conversations that the real underlying issue of the anti Obama fervor is race and much of what these people state now is just an updated smoother version of the uncensored racism of their forebearers from prior to 1965. We went looking for blackpowder stores and the one we sought out was leveled by the Picher, OK, and Seneca, MO, tornado back in the early 2000's near Neosho, MO. I heard the veiled racism at one shop we went to. Some people are just smart enough to believe everything the NRA and Fox News says as we watched a morning crowd eat at a cafe next to the historic first Wal Mart on the Bentonville, ARK, square. It's eye opening to see the crazy foment firsthand.

2

Brock Masters 11 months, 1 week ago

There are lots of ways of saving one life. I wonder how many the LTE writer would support.

Lower speed limits. Crash helmets for occupants. Alcohol interlocks for all cars. Ban all sugary drinks and foods. Ban mountain climbing Ban skiing.

The point is we accept risks because we value liberty. You shouldn't demand others give up their liberties unless you are willing to give up yours and to be consistent in promoting safety in the hopes of saving just one life.

2

JJE007 11 months, 1 week ago

I have to admit that the oft used line "If it saved just one life..." makes my skin crawl. It's as emotionally abusive, trite and ridiculously obsequious as any line ever used to justify one's position.

Getting rid of seat-belts, cars, knives, ground meat and airplanes would save "just one life". Will we be doing that soon? Will we be ending the most destructive force on the planet (overpopulation) any time soon? Outlawing Monsanto would save a crappieload more LIFE than any gun legislation!

This emotional BS is distracting us from issues that are actually destroying our WORLD! "Just one life" isn't worth calling off a drone strike. "Just one life" isn't worth one piece of green or gold.

Get a clue. Get a (just one) life.

We have NO POWER! We have NOTHING! Some of us are trudging along beneath the black ops ceiling of corporate power and carving out "just one life" for ourselves and perhaps a few more members of our families/tribe. It won't last unless we get control of those who are destroying our world.

Are you BLIND?

You are being held as an emotional hostage. Those who don't care about losing thousands or millions of lives in the pursuit of power (land, money, influence, money, land, control, land, money, dictatorship, money, land) are pushing us into an ever less powerful position in this world. A few of us are still in the process of being enslaved, the rest (most) of us are already there.

Big government/corporations are our masters. It's not supposed to be that way. They promise to offer "protection". Unfortunately, it's at the cost of a sane existence. Unfortunately, the insane among us will assist the powerful in creating the fear necessary in the wresting of the last vestiges of power and control from our dead, cold hands. I'm not really talking about guns. I'm talking about freedom. I'm talking about control of our lives, our lifestyles, the way we play, the way we operate our communities, the way we make a living, the way we improve, rather than destroy the land and water and sky.

I'm not trying to change the world. I've totally given up. I believe we are doomed. I have guns. I don't intend to use them to survive (for long) if things turn nasty. I think we've already lost. We let institutions become "people"...gigantic, greedy, privileged, powerful people with delusions of righteousness.

Have fun trying to keep your toys and/or righteous indignation. I'm sure you'll be able to save "just one life".

WHEW! I like to kick out a rant, now and then. I'll now go back to trying to make people laugh and watch what's left of nature's beautiful life, without selling it to prevent the beauty of death.

7

Brock Masters 11 months, 1 week ago

True, the founding fathers didn't envision the type of weapons we have today but they also didn't envision the type of technology we use to exercise our first amendment. What they did do was to allow the citizens the right to bear the most sophisticated arms at the time - the same ones available to the enemy.

Are gun owners really paranoid? Feinstein introduced a bill in congress that would have resulted in now legal guns, including those used for hunting to be banned. States have banned guns resulting in gun owners having to either sell their guns out of state or have the, confiscated. These laws have resulted in other guns from being banned and rendered useless because they banned the magazines.

Want to reduce crime then enforce the laws on the books and keep violent criminals in jail. 4 years for attempted murder by shooting someone is too short of a sentence.

We need to work on the root causes of violence and until we stem violence don't try to stop me from protecting myself and my family.

5

Bruce Bertsch 11 months, 1 week ago

A couple of footnotes about the founding fathers and the right to bear arms. Have you been to Williamsburg? There you will see in the middle of an intersection, an interesting building called an armory. Its where the British forced the colonists to keep their weapons. The second amendment gave the new citizens the right to keep them and to be trained in a militia. After all, there were native Americans and Frenchmen to occasionally battle, and in 1812, the British. The idea of defending against the tyranny of the government as an excuse to oppose any control of weapons is made up from whole cloth. It was never the intent. Some of the strident anti-gun leaders have been such renowned liberals as Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. Mitt Romney signed a ban on assault weapons as Governor of Massachusetts, but its Obama that everyone is afraid of. Paranoid much?

2

Steven Gaudreau 11 months, 1 week ago

Isn't there currently a law prohibiting individuals with a felony record from owning a gun? I don't understand because the man accused of this weeks horrible murders in Ottawa was a convicted felon and yet, he had a gun. How does that happen? I think more laws will stop these criminals from owning illegal guns because I'm sure the idea of getting a gun law violation is much more of a concern then a murder charge.

3

Richard Heckler 11 months, 1 week ago

In 2004, the NRA opposed renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. And the NRA has done so under Obama = not smart thinking.

In fact I am now in favor of challenging their tax exempt status considering they have become a right wing influenced organization reduced to doing nothing but spending big bucks on political campaigns.

3

Richard Heckler 11 months, 1 week ago

How exactly is Obama anti gun? Never found any way to document that Obama is anti gun.

He does seem to be anti ownership of military assault type weapons. A sensible position.

Military assault style weapons allow for multiple human deaths quickly and have no place in the hunting of wild game. In fact may be against the law to hunt wild game with assault weapons.

To be anti gun would be anti hunting for wild game which is not the Obama position.

5

Lynn731 11 months, 1 week ago

You are naive if you do not recognize the Obama administration constantly lies about many things and is very anti-gun, would not use these enhanced checks to establish a national registry of firearms owners. It is against the law, but that hasn't stopped them yet. A look at England, Australia, and groups such as the Nazi's, show that guns once registered are often seized. This is unconstitutional in our country for good reason. Our country's Founding Fathers were ahead of their time in getting the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights established, including the right to bear arms. They certainly recognized that weapons technology and most other things, would be improved with the passage of time. I side with the NRA, GOA, and other pro gun groups on this one. I agree that fighting against a tyrannical government is one reason for the second amendment. I was one of the armed good guys, a peace officer, for thirty years. I have always believed that law abiding citizens have the right to own and carry firearms to protect themselves, and their families.

12

weiser 11 months, 1 week ago

The Founders, wanted to protect themselves from the government. Probably too late for us to do.

6

Commenting has been disabled for this item.