[chickenfried]

I'm working on my email right now.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/01/14/opinion/commentary/23_11_081_13_05.txt

[beerslurpy]

Jesus christ. I'll deal with this one tomorrow. I think I'm too drowsy right now and its possible we are being trolled. OMG guns are about power!!?!?! Lets not let the government or criminals find out about this!

[71Commander]

Someone should point out to her that the original wording was not "Thou shalt not kill", but "Thou shalt not commit murder".

[chickenfried]

I gotta admit guys I have to get better at writing letters. Somehow what I'm thinking doesn't always end up correctly in the letter. So how about some constructive criticism, please? Thanks.

I just read your article posted online. It contains a lot of emotional content that casts guns, gun owners, and the NRA in a bad light. But is not very good at giving facts about how exactly the problem is guns, instead of the criminal. A backround check is done on an individual purchasing a firearm, for what they've done not what they might do in the future. Your problem seems to be with the inability to see into the future, to prevent criminals from obtaining items they would use to cause harm and to see who's going to become a criminal.

Also, do you really believe the purpose of the second amendment is to uphold your right to kill bambi and donald duck? The one thing you almost had right was the title of your article. The purpose of the second amendment is to empower the individual. Guns are really about empowerment.

[jamz]

Actually, she's completely right. Guns are about power, specifically, power over tyrrany. What she is railing against in that article is murder, but she's confusing murder with gun ownership.

She's just not that bright, but she did get the headline right. :)

-James

[geekWithA.45]

rezults of publik edumakashun.

She's correct on several factual points, but fails to assemble the picture coherently.

In her soft, warm and fuzzy world, guns = power, and power belongs soley to trustworthy organizations like the .gov or UN.

[The Rabbi]

That might be the dumbest article I have read this week, and its still Sunday.

What is her point? That people do bad things with guns? Well, duh. People do bad things with computers, automobiles, screwdrivers, frying pans and who knows what else. A gun is a tool. Any tool can be misused. What is controversial or hard to understand about that?

[Moondoggie]

I sent her an email.

One of my points was that her juxtaposition of the 2nd Amendment and the 6th Commandment was flawed reasoning. Despite the Commandment, God obviously doesn't have a problem with killing. E. g., the great flood, Soddom & Gamorah, Anninias & Saphira, the guy who inadvertantly touched the ark of the covenent, and AFTER the commandments were handed down "Hey, Joshua, go up into the land of the Hittites, etc and slay all of the inhabitants plus the livestock".

Cain slew Abel with a rock. Then there were the crusades. Now the Islamofacists have their beef with infidels. Thousands were slaughtered in Rwanda in '95, mostly using rocks, clubs, and machetes. Many were tied up and thrown in rivers to drown. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. It has always been that way, and nobody has been able to find "the answer". Murder and violence are commonplace in prisons where people are subject to the most stringent control imaginable. Until someone does find "the answer", removing the means of protection against the wolves among us is not going to make the situation better.

That's a synopysis of my .02 cents worth.

[peacefuljeffrey]

One of my points was that her juxtaposition of the 2nd Amendment and the 6th Commandment was flawed reasoning. Despite the Commandment, God obviously doesn't have a problem with killing. E. g., the great flood, Soddom & Gamorah, Anninias & Saphira, the guy who inadvertantly touched the ark of the covenent, and AFTER the commandments were handed down "Hey, Joshua, go up into the land of the Hittites, etc and slay all of the inhabitants plus the livestock".

You all should read "Letters from the Earth" by Mark Twain.

He deals specifically with the notion that god commanded mankind to obey laws or morality that god himself steadfastly refuses to obey.

It would be difficult for anyone who believes in god to read the book and come out unchanged, and still believing in the common notion of god and heaven.

What's even better is, HERE IS THE ENTIRE TEXT OF THE BOOK, ONLINE!:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm

Enjoy, and learn something.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

[SmershAgent]

"Mr. Moore believes that gun violence is caused by a fear-inducing media"

A fear-inducing media, eh? Sort of like the media that was in hysterics last September because, "military-style, rapid fire, high capacity assault weapons" would be "flooding the streets". Or perhaps like the reporters in New York who are falling all over each other to spread the word about the "new, high powered, armor-piercing, cop killing" FN five-seven.

Or maybe even something like an ignorant editorial that posists everyone who owns a firearm is a loose cannon who's ready to take to the streets settling old scores?

The entire mainstream media establishment would be wise to follow Moore's advice (as much as I loathe admitting that). If gun violence is such a big problem, then stop sensationalizing every aspect of firearms, particulary the many aspects which most reporters/producers don't understand. I know it probably helped ratings to prophesize that we were going to be knee deep in bodies when September 14 came, but that sort of "reporting" is unprofessional, unethical, and irresponsible.

:cuss:

[mbs357]

I'm no where near cut out for writing a letter to this nut-case...
People like this make me sick to my stomach, how can anyone blame an object for the crimes a person commits?
If I stabbed someone in the face with a screwdriver, the media would be saying something like "18 year old loses mind and kills pedestrian."
If I shot someone in the face with a gun, "Gun took over 18 year old's mind and made him shoot someone."

[Waitone]

Another idiot with access to a megaphone. :banghead:

[rdbrowning]

I know, I shouldn't go tilting with windmills or trying to teach pigs to sing, but I couldn't resist. I wrote

"Elaine,
I just read your article and would like to comment on a few of the points you made.

You mentioned that many of us revere the 2nd amendment but forget the 6th commandment and the gun ownership does not give us a God given license to kill. If you read any Bible commentary, and most of the modern translations, you will find that the commandment is "Thou shall not murder". Exodus 22:2 even shows that lethal force is justifiable in the protection of your property. The difference is that murder is an act of aggression, manslaughter is an accident and self defense is justified.

You noted that we should not harm those that we disagree with or hurt our feelings. You are right. Every class that I have attended or article that I have read about gun ownership highly stress personnel restraint and emotional maturity. You are apparently not part of the "gun culture" and may not be familiar with the old saying "Some can afford to have a temper and some can afford to have a gun, but nobody can afford to have both".

You also noted that a gun gives power and that power can be mis-used. You are absolutely right. But so does physical size, and it has been mis-used throughout the ages too. So does cunning and guile. How many smaller people have been bullied over the years? How many women and children have been assaulted because they were smaller and less powerful than the aggressor. This is what Samuel Colt meant when he created his Peace Maker pistol and dubbed it the "great equalizer", it negated the physical advantage of the aggressor and allowed the smaller person to defend him or herself.

You point out that the abuse of power is a psychological problem and you are absolutely right. But there is a way to test for it, at least to a point. The Bible also provides us with a good proverb "By their fruits, you shall know them". If someone has lived his/her life respecting the laws of your community, then they will probably continue to do so. That is why the criteria for getting a CCW is so tough in most states. For example in Michigan you must meet be at least a 21 year old citizen, a resident of Michigan for 6 months and complete an 8 hour Pistol Safety Training Course. A court can not make any of a number of mental health decrees about you. You can not be subject to a personal protection order. You may never have been convicted of a felony in Michigan or elsewhere, nor have one pending. A dishonorable discharge from the US armed forces also disqualifies you. There is a long list of misdemeanors that you can not have committed within the past 8 years, including a second charge of operating a snowmobile while under the influence. Then there is another list of misdemeanors that you must not have committed within the passed 3 years including DUI and aggravated assault. As you an see, a person with a CCW is going to be a pretty law abiding person, or they won't get it in the first place. If you are a power abuser, to the point of taking illegal action, you probably won't qualify.

I see that you endorse Michael Moore's production "bowling for Columbine". I am curious about what in it, that hasn't been shown to be a lie, fabrication or misquote, you found to be recommendable?

Finally you said "a problem is rarely solved by the use of a gun". If you are limiting your discussion to disagreement, arguments and road rage, I couldn't agree with you more. However if you are over looking the 2.5 million times a year that a gun is used in self defense in this country, I am afraid that you are not looking at the whole situation. You draw the conclusion that guns are too easy to come by and that this is a contributing factor to our crime problems. But the 1991 Dutch Ministry of Justice figures show that Australia, England, Scotland and even our peace loving neighbors to the north have a contact crime victimization rate almost twice as high as ours.

It doesn't add up does it. Throughout the history of mankind people have been killing each other. All of that time, the aggressor was correctly identified as the cause of the problem. Now we want to blame the tool that was misused. I wonder if that was Cain's defense when he killed Able "The club did it. Ban all sticks!".

[LadySmith]

I wrote the author:

You asked, "How is it that many of us revere the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution yet seem to forget about the Bible's sixth commandment?" The answer is: millions. There are approximately 80 million gun owners in the U.S. that do not fire upon vandals toilet-papering houses.
When you spoke of guns being about power, your article shifted from law-abiding gun ownership to the criminal misuse of firearms. Drive-by shootings, school shootings, spousal homicides, etc., are all criminal acts. It seems that you're lumping legal gun owners into the criminal element while trying to work out your own angst concerning firearms, given the odd tangents your article took.
Law-abiding gun owners have firearms for many reasons: defense, sport, collecting, etc. All legal acts. Criminals obtain guns to facilitate their illegal enterprises: murder, rape, robbery, etc. All illegal acts. Please don't confuse the two. A true sportswoman wouldn't.
You said, "A problem is rarely solved by the use of a gun." When it comes to law-abiding citizens deterring criminals, that problem is solved effectively millions of times a year, usually without a shot being fired. So, I beg to differ.
Perhaps that is the true power of guns, to make a criminal immediately cease and desist when laws, penalties, and pleading can't.

[LadySmith]

Dear Ms....

When I said problems were rarely solved with a gun, I meant problems like tp'ing homes or spousal disagreements, etc. I would never deny anyone the use of a gun for self-protection.

I was not talking about you, or I, or the millions of gun-owners who use guns responsibly. But there are some supposedly law-abiding citizens who misuse firearms. That is what I was addressing. Sometimes the power of a gun is abused. None of us want that. But I also said that more laws were not the answer...so I don't know why some readers got the idea I want to ban firearms. I never would advocate such a thing.

Perhaps I should have worded some things better. Forgive me if I offended you, that was never my intent.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Elaine Bellucci
I agree, she should've worded a lot of things better. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what was/is her point.

[Moondoggie]

I don't disagree with one word you said in your letter. When I said God-given license to kill, I meant like James Bond, "007 license to kill" kinda thing. Owning a gun does not me we can kill without just cause, as in the case of vandals and toilet paper, spousal disagreements, etc.

I am all for self-protection as that may be the only way to truly protect ourselves from the "dark side" I certainly would not deny anyone their Second Amendment right. So many people misunderstood that. I thought I had made myself clear on that. But obviously I could have done better.

Sorry if the quotes are sloppy, it's my first attempt. All of the text didn't seem to want to fit in the box, so I had to do it twice. I searched the FAQ's, but it didn't work as advertised. Any hints would be greatly appreciated!

There's a couple of other nice opening and closing sentences. Sounds like she's been a busy person today answering emails.

I think the bottom line about this author is that she shot-off a fluff piece from the hip either not thinking it through or figuring nobody would notice. :rolleyes: Alas, the internet...go figure! Maybe she was up against a deadline. She doesn't come across individually as anti-gun and she's not ultra defensive when her point of view is challenged. I think there's hope for her. I doubt that I'd get a like response from CBS.

[Birukun]

Mr. (redacted),

I never said I wanted to ban guns! I never would do such a thing. In fact I said more laws would not be the answer.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Elaine Bellucci

My email:

To: elainebellucci@msn.com
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:05 PM
Subject: RE: Guns are really about power

You are right about one thing - guns are about power.

Power of an oppressive force, which comes in many shapes. Governments,
rapists, serial killers, and others meaning harm.

Unfortunately in the case you cite, someone used bad judgement and shot
someone for putting TP on their house. It happens. He may have just as
easily have run them down with a car. I went to school with a guy who
lost his life hitting mailboxes with a bat when he was 16. He made a
bad decision too. Just like all the teens going out, drinking, then
driving - killing themselves and possibly someone else. I did not see
a column from you wanting to ban driving for minors!

Consider using the 'safety of society' as a reason to arm the individual
before using the 'safety of society' as a reason to disarm the
individual.

Bill
North County

Yes, at least she answered, but I get answers from my reps in congress all the time.... or at least their staff, do they listen? Who knows, but if you don't write, they never know........

Cheers-
Bill in SD (North County to boot!)

[Art Eatman]

I wrote her and got a good response.

I think she just didn't spend enough time on her main point about the "But he was such a good guy..." problem to make it clear as to her concern. I can agree with that part of her thesis, but too many other and irrelevant facets were brought in.

Heck, we all know about the good guys. My first experience was with Charley Whitman--and that was in 1966. The problem is that no system of whatever sort can prevent such tragedies. Good guys are always gonna be approved by "The System" and they can go nutzoid at some later date...

Face it, we here have more than once gone around and around over the question of how, in advance of misuse of a firearm, any open and free society can actually protect itself against that misuse. Generally, we're in accord that it's impossible.

Anyhow, I invited her to THR. Let's lay off and see if she follows up, okay?

:), Art

[Birukun]

Her point is lost in her article. After the third read, I am beginning to make some sense out of the article and her responses have helped as well.

She is writing about the power of a gun and the extra responsibility that comes with gun ownership. Her wording made it difficult to get around to what she wanted to say about the right way and wrong way to resolve conflict in a situation involving teenagers on a papering spree.

The discussion involving a recent home invasion touches on the subject of when/what is deadly force reasonably allowed, and I think the author of the article was pointing out that the shooter in this case was out of bounds.

Her attempt to use this instance as a way to 'educate' for the common good has left me (initially at least) confused about the how and why of her article.

I hope her articles in the future are more direct and focus on issues related to the encroachment of the government on our 2nd Amendment rights and leave the 'application of deadly force' discussions to forums like this. Only when gun ownership is no longer a villanous affair do I expect tips on concealed carry, reloading, and gun safe decorating to be in the newspaper. (in the Home section - am I dreaming?)

Bill in SD

[That Columnist!]

Dear All,

Sorry for the form letter, I was doing my best to answer you all personally (well…the ones who were not attacking me personally, those I deleted) but if I continue to do so, I don’t feel I’ll get anything else done, and my back is starting to hurt from sitting in this chair. Wow, who knew I’d get such response! I sure didn’t, haha. And I certainly am having trouble with the response I’m getting, because it seems I didn’t make anyone happy.

There are some common thoughts and questions coming from folks so I thought I’d address them here for all of you, and then if you still want to talk, feel free to e-mail me again. I welcome dialogue anytime, and I am learning so much!

First. This was an opinion piece which gives me some freedom to emote in my discourse. I feel it lends to the piece that I show I have some fear of those who abuse the power of their firearms, and my loss as to how to prevent it, because it is just horrid. Oh, there I go again. Yes. I am glad that came through.

The editor gives the title. I think the title just put some people automatically on the defensive. When I wrote the piece I was thinking, “Guns and the Abuse of Power” or something along those lines…but the editor has final say on the title, and so I never even title the pieces when I send them in…. I know, lame excuse but I’ve really been thinking about this subject lately, haha.

I should have never mentioned Michael Moore. Forgive me. Please. I have not hunted since my babies were born, really, and fish alot instead. Hence my line about how I’d rather be fishing. And the answer to why I’d rather be is that fish are easier to clean, and I can do it all year. Oh, yeah I think I’m funny too. Forgive me. Please.

Oh yeah, Michael Moore. Sorry, my bad. I need to hang out with you guys more so I can tell when I am recommending a person akin to the Anti-Christ, and keep my mouth shut. I still think he made some good points though…I do. But that doesn’t mean I don’t also appreciate the various web addresses and other films many of you have recommended that I view. I have looked at some of the sites, very interesting. And I am learning more. Really, I feel bad about recommending Bowling for Columbine in a gun article if it offended anyone. My intent was to inform, not offend. But now I can see why it would offend, and I apologize. That was stupid to do. There’s a rule to writing; “Know thy Audience”. I Thought I did, I mean, I know me, and I have guns. But I don’t know you. Oopsey. And again, so sorry.

Ok, what else. Oh “God-given license to kill.” Ok, you’ll probably think this is hilarious. I was not thinking self-protection when I wrote this line. I was thinking James Bond. I meant that owning a gun does is not a God-given license to go out and hunt people down or take them out at will, like James Bond can. Am I for use of a fire-arm for self-protection and the protection of those in harm’s way. Second Amendment? HELL YES! Enough said there.

Mention of psychiatric evaluations before purchase of fire-arm. I meant to make that look ridiculous. There is not much more that can be done. More laws are not the answer. The mention of the NRA howling could have been deleted; it was probably not very fair, although true to me. But once again it is an opinion piece, and I want to put me in it.

Oh, and by the way, here is my political thinking: I consider myself to be a Libertarian. The less law the better. I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe in the freedom of self-determination. And with that freedom I also hold very dear to my heart Responsibility.

Any one of us, when told about a man hunting people down tp’ers with a gun would shake our heads and say, “ridiculous” or “stupid” or something like that.

The lack of responsibility and the abuse of the power of a firearm is the threat to good law-abiding gun owners. Not me. I am with you in so many ways. I hope you can see that now. I feel we have much more common ground than not.

That was maybe the worst column I ever wrote. Or maybe the best. I was sincere, even if not very clear, and if reactions are caused by my honesty, then it is good to discuss things, right?

I thank each of you who have written. I will try to respond to each of you personally if I can, but if not, I hope you understand. Once again, my absolute apologies if I offended any of you. I look forward to keeping the dialogue open. And since I am a columnist, maybe I can one day write a better piece in your mind. One that speaks to you in an affirmative way.

Sincerely,

Elaine Bellucci

[erik the bold]

Welcome to THR! :scrutiny: Where discourse is pursued in a, um, err, oh yeah, "civilized" manner :D

[chickenfried]

Welcome to THR :D . Hee hee you called me a gentleman :o in your reply email. How much higher was the feedback received on this commentary, compared with the usual number of responses?

[Molon Labe]

Hi Elaine. And welcome to THR. (I'm the guy who emailed you about this thread, BTW.)

The first few paragraphs were O.K., and I agree with some of the statements you made. But then you said,

Guns are too easy to come byCould you expand on that? What new laws (if any) would you support to make guns "harder" to come by?

I also couldn't figure out the overall purpose of the article. What, exactly, was the point of it? Everyone already knows there exists Bad People with Guns (BPGs). Are you suggesting we should pass new gun control laws? Or are you suggesting we should better enforce (or modify) existing gun control laws?

[Waitone]

Welcome to the THR. I sincerely hope you get to hanging around. I consider THR to be one of the more well-behaved boards on the web considering the subject we bat around.

In defense of those who politely emailed you, we are perhaps more knowledgeable about the technology of guns AND the law of guns AND politics of guns than perhaps many professional pundits and certainly a lot of politicians. It is difficult at best to slip one past the board members. We also don't mind lighting up the ol' keyboard and voicing our opinions. You showed great character by registering and addressing us directly. ;)

I, for one, hope you hang around and get addicted. We are constantly ragging on the "media". I would love to be able to bat around a media atrocity with a genuine, official member.

Welcome and come back! :D

[Brian Dale]

Wow -- I'm very impressed that you came by to say your piece, and Welcome to The High Road. People here don't seem to hold grudges, and you'll find some added respect for having come to forthrightly post your intentions and your thoughts.

Pleased that you're here, Elaine. :) Relax and stay a while, read and post, and enjoy yourself here. I think that you'll eventually decide that you're among friends.

[HKUSP45C]

Welcome!! Come in and set a spell, we're all good folks. Heck, they treat me well, that's more than I can say for the people in my own home. :D

I must admit it takes an awful lot of moxy to post to a board of (misunderstanding) critics. You've got heart, I like that.

Do stay awhile, you'll find there's plenty of sage wisdom on these pages, none from me, mind you but everyone else here is pretty wise.

[grampster]

Elaine,

Welcome to THR. I was surprised to get a personal reply from you, and now here you are on THR. But now I am hurt because you replied to all these other characters. Here I thought I was special. :o I suppose most of the mail you received from our membership was rational or you would not have been inclined to join the crowd. We kind of pride ourselves on the idea that arguing ideas are good, but don't tolerate ad hominum attacks here on THR.

Anyhoo, welcome to the zoo. Hope to see your contributions and maybe you can use your bully pulpit to broadcast that gun owners are really just ordinary people who believe in freedom and justice. That we view the idea that firearm ownership provides a myriad of opportunity for not only sporting and hunting, but provides us with protection and security as well. And further that we are responsible and trustworthy people. :)

[jimpeel]

Welcome to THR. Come early, stay late, and often.

[oneslowgun]

Elaine, Welcome!

So rare is the chance, that a member of the "media" is willing to discuss their viewpoints with the very same people those viewpoints affect! Even more so rare, that said member is willing to be "public" about it.

Please read the postings here, more importantly, please respond to them! Your viewpoint is valued, and if we disagree, allow us to tell you why!

In an argument, neither party listens to the other.
In a discussion, both parties get to understand a different position.

[USAFNoDAk]

New Member, our friend Elaine wrote:

Ok, what else. Oh “God-given license to kill.” Ok, you’ll probably think this is hilarious. I was not thinking self-protection when I wrote this line. I was thinking James Bond. I meant that owning a gun does is not a God-given license to go out and hunt people down or take them out at will, like James Bond can. Am I for use of a fire-arm for self-protection and the protection of those in harm’s way. Second Amendment? HELL YES! Enough said there.

I understand what you are saying here, but think about it for a minute. Didn't James Bond work for the Government? Wasn't he a fictional secret agent of the British Govt.? This is exactly what the Second Amendment is about. Us peons need the equalizing power of the firearm to allow us at least a chance of holding off abuse of power by armed govt. agents, both foreign and domestic. We all hope it never comes to that here in the dear old USofA. I also hope my house never starts on fire because of an abuse of power by my furnace. I keep a fire extinguisher just to balance that power a little bit.

You state that you are pro second amendment, and we have no reason to think you might be lying about that. However, your point seemed too disjointed to make the case that the second amendment is not an amendment that allows the abuse of power by us Civies, but rather is meant to prevent the abuse of power by the Govies. I hope my point is clear.

Welcome. I too am glad to see a media person with the chutzpah to swim with the dolphins on matters related to guns and the politics regarding them. (I say dolphins cause we is a whole lot smarter than some of dem der sharks who attack gunowners in the media pool). :evil: