shooterx10
August 3, 2003, 04:02 AM
Thank you to all those who replied back to these anti-gun scumbags! :cuss:
Posted on Sat, Aug. 02, 2003
Gun editorial gets it wrong
The Mercury News editorial board's cavalier treatment of the potential ban on a type of .50 caliber rifle (Opinion July 28) generates both anger and concern.
Anger, because the editorial board didn't even take time to explore the facts. Had you done so, you would have found that no crime ever has been committed in California with any .50-caliber arm; the supposed draconian effects can be achieved by a skilled marksman using any high-caliber arm; the arm in question is strictly a long-range target proposition, hardly a ``sniper'' rifle; and the author of the legislation is a far-left, hysterically anti-firearms Assembly member who can be counted on to trot out several such bills every session.
Concern, because of your flippant disregard of a constitutional right as contained in the Second Amendment. You say the burden of proof should be on those who may want to purchase such a rifle, not on government efforts to restrict such purchase. Would you also agree that as a condition of employment, every reporter in the land be required to prove that he or she will make no mistakes and write no potentially libelous stories? I thought not.
Bill Leonard
San Jose
Once again, it is you who has things backward. The Bill of Rights says a person has a right to own a firearm -- the part that says ``the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' What part of ``the people'' do you not understand?
No official approval is required to own a big rifle, just as you don't have to get permission from anyone in order to express your opinions, however wrongheaded they may be.
Frank L. Messersmith
Cupertino
Your July 28 editorial repeats the same tired mantra that citizens should have no rights to weapons with military use. This is just the inverse of the standard interpretation of the Second Amendment. The amendment was formulated specifically to balance the power of government and citizens, not just to assure we could all hunt to feed ourselves or protect us from criminals. If an individual right to keep and bear arms exists, and many or most scholars think it does, then we all have the right to the same weapons as our own military and police.
Steve Schear
Fremont
Here is the link. (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/6442894.htm)
Posted on Sat, Aug. 02, 2003
Gun editorial gets it wrong
The Mercury News editorial board's cavalier treatment of the potential ban on a type of .50 caliber rifle (Opinion July 28) generates both anger and concern.
Anger, because the editorial board didn't even take time to explore the facts. Had you done so, you would have found that no crime ever has been committed in California with any .50-caliber arm; the supposed draconian effects can be achieved by a skilled marksman using any high-caliber arm; the arm in question is strictly a long-range target proposition, hardly a ``sniper'' rifle; and the author of the legislation is a far-left, hysterically anti-firearms Assembly member who can be counted on to trot out several such bills every session.
Concern, because of your flippant disregard of a constitutional right as contained in the Second Amendment. You say the burden of proof should be on those who may want to purchase such a rifle, not on government efforts to restrict such purchase. Would you also agree that as a condition of employment, every reporter in the land be required to prove that he or she will make no mistakes and write no potentially libelous stories? I thought not.
Bill Leonard
San Jose
Once again, it is you who has things backward. The Bill of Rights says a person has a right to own a firearm -- the part that says ``the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' What part of ``the people'' do you not understand?
No official approval is required to own a big rifle, just as you don't have to get permission from anyone in order to express your opinions, however wrongheaded they may be.
Frank L. Messersmith
Cupertino
Your July 28 editorial repeats the same tired mantra that citizens should have no rights to weapons with military use. This is just the inverse of the standard interpretation of the Second Amendment. The amendment was formulated specifically to balance the power of government and citizens, not just to assure we could all hunt to feed ourselves or protect us from criminals. If an individual right to keep and bear arms exists, and many or most scholars think it does, then we all have the right to the same weapons as our own military and police.
Steve Schear
Fremont
Here is the link. (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/6442894.htm)