Comment history

Letter: Fear sells guns

During his first term, the Obama apologists delighted in saying "See, He doesn't really want your guns. So what are you afraid of?" It is now crystal clear that he DID want your guns, he just wanted a second term more. Some of the wildest-eyed conspiracy theorists are even suggesting that the Sandy Hook shooting coming as soon after the election as it did was no coincidence. I don't believe that. I think he just took Rahm Emanuel's advice never to let a good crisis go to waste.

Regardless of who you think is to blame for all our troubles, keep in mind that gun control legislation is notorious for producing only unintended results.

February 17, 2013 at 10:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Run on guns

You have to admire the honesty of the poster who comes right out and states that he/she wants to take away all the guns. The 1976 New Yorker quote from Pete Shields is noteworthy, in that it is probably the last honest statement of intent in the national media by gun control proponents. Unfortunately for them, this is a constitutional republic, and the opinion of the many is irrelevant if it is counter to the constitution.

The language most often used by gun control supporters today is "Why are you opposed even to sensible restrictions on guns?" The reason - they know this - is the same reason that women's rights groups are opposed to sensible restrictions on abortion: They know perfectly well that in this context "sensible" really means "Everything we can ram through the legislature under the prevailing political climate." There are already over 20,000 "sensible" gun laws on the statute books of this country, and I defy anyone to provide convincing proof that we are a damned bit safer because of them.

February 14, 2013 at 2:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Run on guns

At the time Fred Mertz refers to, there weren't any "assault weapons" out there. "Saturday night Specials" was the buzz phrase for the anti gun crowd, and the Gun Control Act of 68 was intended primarily to keep them out of the hands of black people. If you don't believe it, try to find some other mandatory government form than the 4473 that still requires an applicant to report race. There was a short period where it appeared that scoped hunting rifles would be demonized as "sniper weapons." Then the Clinton ban put a million or so ARs and AKs out there, and they became the new fear. Every step of the way, the media helped as much as they could by reporting every single case they could find where the evil-gun-of-right-now was featured. You can wave your hands all you like in support of "reasonable" gun control laws, but don't be surprised when the only consequences of their passage are the unintended ones.

February 10, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Run on guns

I think the point the original writer is making is that the gun and ammunition makers don't need to advertise a blessed thing. This whole business is a headache for them. The president and a couple of well-known Democrat senators have whipped up such a buying frenzy that the manufacturers can't possibly keep up with the demand. Yet if they upgrade and start running three shifts in order to supply what people want now, when the demand inevitably collapses with either the passage or ignominious failure of the proposed legislation, they are stuck with a lot of employees and production capacity that their income will not support.

February 10, 2013 at 10:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )