Cynicism has killed the gun-control debate - Sun

[runswscissors]

Dan Who? Let him say what he wants. I have a feeling we are the only ones reading his column.

 

[fivepointstar]

This guy needs set of balls...what a pansy!

He's a hipocrite......uses his first amendment rights to bash 2A. TOTAL PANSY or WUSSBOY, you can quote me on that!

 

[Boondock Saint]

His reply to my letter:

I've heard it all before, and I'm sick of it.
I'm entitled to be sick of hearing the same old arguments in the face of unmitigated gun violence, which appears to have no effect on gun nuts. Well-crafted or not, it's the same old rationalizations, the same old blah blah blah.
And don't worry -- we might not have newspapers in this democracy soon, but we'll certainly have plenty of guns.

And my reply:

Mr. Rodricks,

You are very much entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to treat your readers with disrespect and contempt solely because they disagree with you. You know who the readers are, right, Mr. Rodricks? Those eyeballs read the stories which are surrounded by advertisements which fund your paycheck. Best not to bite the hand that feeds you?

And don't worry -- I'd rather have every single law-abiding citizen in this Republic carry a gun than to further waste my time corresponding with someone who not only thinks he knows it all, but isn't afraid to lose readers because of his mistreatment of the same.

A pleasant day to you, sir,

 

[pilotguy]

I find it interesting that someone would argue that military style rifles were not the intent of the Founding Fathers. I wonder what other type rifle would you use for a "...well regulated militia...?"

 

[trickg]

I find it interesting that someone would argue that military style rifles were not the intent of the Founding Fathers. I wonder what other type rifle would you use for a "...well regulated militia...?"

That's actually a preposterous argument because there are writings by the Founding Fathers that support the very idea that military type arms are the very kinds of arms that the citizens were SUPPOSED to have in their homes. So yes - military style arms WERE the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Again, his arguments clearly show his ignorance on the subject matter, and yet he won't lift a finger to do any kind of real research because simply put, he doesn't want to. It would collapse the house of cards he uses to support his point of view. The points I presented to him that he dismissed with "blah blah blah" are not my arguments - those come directly from the writings of the founders of this nation.

 

[drott]

Custer was largely outgunned from attacking Indians due to their use of Winchester repeaters (vs the single shot rifles issued to US Army at that time). The Winchester repeater was the "spray from the hip assault rifle" of that time. Considering that many on the left think it was perfectly appropriate that the Native Americans ferociously fought against their "oppressors" at that time using superior armaments - I wonder why they have a problem with US citizens having reasonably effective arms for the mere possibility of keeping an overreaching govt in check?

 

[Cold Steel]

More of This Will Come, I'm Afraid....

"...Most of us are also convinced that there are too many angry, ill and violent people in our midst, and that they have easy access to guns. Cynicism has killed the gun-control debate

Well, in a way he's right. Only these people can't be stopped by gun control legislation.

I read accounts of violence all over the world. I've read of people with machetes taking out many people, or people armed with knives or other lethal weapons like baseball bats. The problem is, our justice system is a joke and our populations are becoming increasingly more polarized.

The thing about gun control is this. Guns make lots of noise. They alert people that something is wrong. Yet too often in a society where the right of self defense has been denied people, we become sitting ducks. It's kind of like that pirate fiasco. The U.N. treaties state that no merchant freight or oil ships should be armed. Intelligent, no? So these idiots take to sea with ice picks and they pay a hefty price in loss of life, freedom and, of course, money. And the very people in the Obama administration who insists that these ships have a right to self defense are the FIRST people to deny you yours!

What if I looked at some of the last few popularized shootings and write an editorial saying, "A lot of the people committing such acts are foreigners!" Well, I'd be rightly criticized, of course, but the same "logic" is being applied to firearms.

As we go further into this horrible Depression, people are going to become violent. Frankly, I'm surprised that more people haven't snapped. But we as a society have become defanged. In many places, we're not even allowed to carry chemical sprays. Some nitwit judge has declared we can't defend ourselves in a national park until an environmental study has been completed. Can you believe it?

The gun control debate is very pivotal, and as one vicious gun controller told me years ago when I worked for the NRA, "You can win a million times. We have to win only once." He was talking about handgun prohibition, and he's right. Once it happens, it's unlikely we'll ever get that right back.

On the other hand, when crime goes down, no one cares about gun control. There's little support and a lot of opposition. Yet when crime soars, the average guy on the street asks himself, "Do I really want to give up my right to defend myself?" Thus, he becomes more unlikely to support these laws.

The Obama administration has shown that it doesn't care about how the courts interpret the Second Amendment. There are other ways, like banning the ammunition it uses, in effect, leaving you with a paperweight. And most of Obama's people believe this can be done through policy, not through legislation. I think they're right. After dumbing down ammo with tracer marks or serializing each round, they'll generously give you guys a year to get rid of your existing ammunition, then it becomes illegal and the draconian penalties will deter the most determined amongst you. If you're caught, you lose your right to own guns for the rest of your life. And they seize everything that you have, like your car or even your home. They do this with drugs now. Why wouldn't they do the same with ammo?

Another thing they have going for them is this: many people with guns have a box of ammo or less. The administration is already targeting "right wing extremists" who cling to their Bibles and their guns. They've already passed volumes of laws that they haven't gotten around to exercising yet. All we need is an emergency.

So getting back to nuts with guns, I'm afraid you're going to see more of this. Much more. When people lose their jobs before they can collect pensions and when the money they've saved for years suddenly becomes virtually worthless overnight, I personally fear for the future. But I don't want to have these people sneaking around with pig stickers, machetes or other weapons that can silently take people out.

Maryland needs to join the family of states that allow citizens to legally carry firearms. We may not like living in Dodge City, but the government is the one that determines that. In tough economic times, the gates of prisons open wide to release dangerous people into society that really should be behind bars (the ones without booze). And in tough economic times, too many angry people see too many golden parachutes going to others.

Oh, and while I'm ranting, did you know that members of Congress get their full salary in pensions for the rest of their lives? If I were a senator, I'd introduce a law requiring the same benefits for all workers. Then I'd introduce legislation calling for only partial pensions for members of Congress. It would be interesting to see how Congress voted for such laws!

Well, I've got to run. Glenn Beck will be on soon!

.

 

[jhartmac]

The thing that that anti gun agenda tries to employ is assault weapons, well back when the constitution was being written the old black powder was considered an assault weapon too. Times change weapons change, so what would their argument be? we should be allowed to own sling shots? or muzzle loaders? their logic is flawed. We the people should always have the ability to defend our beliefs and........have the right to the same technology or we would be lost against a corupt goverment.

 

[Cold Steel]

The thing that that anti gun agenda tries to employ is assault weapons, well back when the constitution was being written the old black powder was considered an assault weapon too.

The same thing can be said about the First Amendment.

When the Constitution was written, we didn't have high-speed presses and radio and television stations. If we follow the same logic, we can say that had the founders known that such advances would be made that they never would have advocated such wide spread freedom of speech.

The anti-Second Amendment people say, "Modern guns can kill far more people than the guns that existed when the Constitution was written."

Yes, but modern high speed printing presses and air/cable broadcasts can destroy reputations of far more people than the printing presses that existed at the time of the Constitution.

Same logic.

Freedom to assemble? Same thing. Subways, buses, taxis, cars—certainly we can't have such freedoms with this increase of technology. Why, the founders wouldn't have stood for it!
.

 

[Waterdoor]

Oh I so hit that BITCH with an e-mail. If he wants to keep up his LibTard B.S. then he will need to find a job because his paper will go out of business.

 

[squirrels]

This person is not interested in rational arguments or dialogue.

There is nothing you can say to him that will make him "see the light". Any disagreement with him, he will interpret as you being a bitter school-shooting maniac.

Best to appeal to the public beyond him than to him directly.

 

[trickg]

This person is not interested in rational arguments or dialogue.

There is nothing you can say to him that will make him "see the light". Any disagreement with him, he will interpret as you being a bitter school-shooting maniac.

Best to appeal to the public beyond him than to him directly.

That's why I say that if you are going to send him a note, stay on the high ground and stick to the facts rather than sinking to anything that remotely resembles his "blah blah blah" attitude. He'll be the one who winds up looking like a total asshat.

 

[Boondock Saint]

I'd like to get some confirmation on some numbers here. Rodricks mentioned in his article that there are roughly 280 firearms for roughly 300 million people in the US. I saw in someone's signature earlier this morning that "64,999,987 gun owners acted responsibly with their weapons yesterday" (or something to that effect.

Are those numbers about right? Sixty five million gun owners, with an average of 4.3 guns a piece?

 

[Bill]

Citizens owned muskets during the crafting of this country. The military used muskets as well.

I don't see his argument.

 

[Martian]

SAF cited a 90 million gunowner figure in a recent panel interview (maybe that's just since the election, LOL!). I would take that well-written response and submit it as a letter-to-the-editor. There's a remote chance it might get published, and you already took the time to write it.

He's clearly one of those individuals who glorifies ignorance.

 

[HoCoShooter]

I'd like to get some confirmation on some numbers here. Rodricks mentioned in his article that there are roughly 280 firearms for roughly 300 million people in the US. I saw in someone's signature earlier this morning that "64,999,987 gun owners acted responsibly with their weapons yesterday" (or something to that effect.

Are those numbers about right? Sixty five million gun owners, with an average of 4.3 guns a piece?

Boondock, there's a lot of info here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

 

[ALBY]

dan rodericks is a bedwetting poodle.

i care not a whit about his opinion nor the sun, which is not fit for lining a litterbox.

people are voting with their wallets and they choose to be armed. mr rodericks can lament with pithy commentary till the cows come home. that, and $3 will get him a latte at starbucks.

blather away you fat blowhard. nobody is listening.

 

[foxtrapper]

I guess Danny Boy likes women being raped, and attacked by violent ex's without a way to defend themselves. Well he can just ooze about in his "gun free" zones, if that is what he likes.

1 man militias? He forgot the one woman militias. Or the open carry "militias" that hang out for lunches and dinners in neighboring states.

Danny Boy is a chauvanist pig, probably doesn't really like blacks either, and thinks Indians still live in tipis.

 

[trickg]

One statistic that I think is interesting is that if you look at the numbers - number of guns in the country, the population of the country and the number of gun owners within that population - the country is MUCH safer with firearms than it was 100 years ago. Far fewer deaths per capita, and far fewer gun related injuries. Unfortunately, those kinds of numbers don't sell the news like a good shooting does, never mind the fact that you are much more likely to get killed in a car wreck or due to medical malpractice than you are to get killed by a firearm.

 

[foxtrapper]

I was in PA today, got asked why I carry ( around there), and I said due to the random maniacs lately. I would have had to say a page worth of responses otherwise LOL.