"Threat Silences Voice of Gun Control"

Status
Not open for further replies.

44Brent

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
398
Location
Illinois
http://blogs.timesunion.com/underfire/?p=61

Threat Silences Voice of Gun Control
June 24, 2007 at 10:08 am by Robyn Ringler
Dear Readers,

At least one of you is an irresponsible, harrassing criminal who shouldn’t own a gun. For the second time since I started advocating for sensible gun legislation, I’ve received a frightening threat and called police.

The following is an essay I wrote about a threat I received shortly after 9/11. It was published by the Albany Times Union on September 6, 2002.

The third of October, it was just 22 days after September 11, 2001. Reaching into the mailbox, I pulled out the usual: bills, junk mail, and magazines, along with one personal letter, its return address simply: Rosie O’Donnell. In the kitchen, I slit the envelope, pulling out a piece of torn paper. Cold blue capital letters jolted me:

YOU FILTHY DIRTY BITCH! COMMUNIST JEW! YOU’LL
NEVER TAKE OUR GUNS AND WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE

I ran from room to room, locking windows and doors. Scanning the yards, I saw no one, but imagined men with guns lurking in hidden places.

I wondered who could have done this. More to the point, who could have misinterpreted me so completely? True, I was a gun control activist, but I also lived on thirty acres of rural property among friends and neighbors for whom hunting was a way of life. I took pride in myself as a voice of reason—someone who understood the gun tradition yet knew the value of gun control laws in saving lives.

As a member of a NYS gun control group and founder of its upstate chapter, I fought for laws requiring safe storage, background checks, licensing and registration—not banning guns. But that didn’t matter. Whoever sent the letter wasn’t interested in my position. He just wanted to silence me.

Though the police reassured us this was the typical work of a bully who probably would take no further action, my husband and I were shaken and wondered if I should quit my gun control work. After a few phone calls, we discovered that, although my organization had never received a threat, many other gun control groups often had. Most workers courageously stayed on.
I, too, hoped to find reasons to stay. I had a lot to say because gun violence had affected me. In 1981, I was assigned to care for President Ronald Reagan at the George Washington University Hospital following an assassination attempt.

When I first saw President Reagan, he looked startlingly different from the image of the rugged cowboy I had seen on TV. Instead of a plaid shirt and Stetson hat, he was swaddled in a hospital gown, his face covered by an oxygen mask. He lay on a stretcher pushed by nurses and Secret Service agents. His anguished wife was huddled at the top of the stretcher, cradling his head in her arms.

The first several nights, the disoriented president had a raging fever and trouble breathing. We mobilized into action—monitoring vital signs, chest tube drainage, and blood tests, administering chest physical therapy and intravenous antibiotics. But we knew by his prostrate body, colorless face, the perspiration trickling into his dark hair and the sound of his labored breathing, there was a real possibility the president might die.

I wondered how this could have happened—how did the shooter get a weapon with his history of mental illness?

Later, I often saw James Brady (President Reagan’s press secretary, gravely injured in the same shooting) wheeled into physical therapy by his wife, Sarah, the bulk of his body slumped to one side, his wide eyes seeming to be the only part of him left living.

Nineteen years later, in May 2000, I returned to Washington, D.C. to attend the Million Mom March. I cried as mothers and wives told stories of senseless shootings: a son killed in a fight over his jacket, a daughter shot in the library at school, a first grader shot in her classroom by a six-year-old.

Determined to do more, I joined the gun control group. Everyday for three weeks, we demonstrated at the NYS Capitol. Elation consumed me when a landmark package of gun control laws was passed. I worked harder—giving speeches, passing out literature, and lobbying lawmakers, at the same time, forming close friendships.

A year and a half later, I stood in my kitchen, looking at the letter. I was convinced that whoever sent it heard a speech two days earlier in which I argued that families should think carefully before bringing a gun into the home. A three-year-old child in Virginia had killed himself with a loaded gun specifically bought to protect the family from terrorists.

On the news that night, a local TV station played snippets of my speech juxtaposed against the commentary of patrons from the Pistol Parlor. The broadcast was like a boxing match with words: first me, then them, then me, then them. I had been televised before, but never like this. It seemed likely that the media report—and, perhaps, the fear generated by September 11th—prompted the threat.

Three days after I received the letter, a member of my group called with news that a gun control activist had been murdered. Tom Wales, the president of Washington Ceasefire in Seattle was deliberately shot and killed in his home. No one knew whether the shooting was related to his outspoken views on gun control.

I informed the FBI and state police of the death in Seattle. The officers sounded grim and, this time, offered no reassurance. An FBI agent questioned whether killing gun control advocates might become the new equivalent of bombing abortion clinics. I welcomed the state police’s decision to begin night patrols of my home.

The murder gave my fear a link with reality. With no way to evaluate the seriousness of the threat against me (the police investigation turned up no fingerprints or other evidence), I made the difficult decision to quit my job.

I wondered how other activists could be so courageous as to simply walk into their workplaces everyday or even open the mail. Awed by their bravery, I felt they should be honored because, unlike me, they refused to quit. Seventeen cold blue words typed across a ripped page, sent by a person who hoped he would achieve this exact result, stopped me. And yet I have not been completely silenced. I have told you what happened.
 
That's interesting... someone posted a comment suggesting that she should buy a gun to protect herself instead of tying up police resources. Then someone deleted the comment.
 
Those who would have us live in fear of those with weapons also live in fear of weapons. I would rather take arms against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune than cower in fear for my life.

Jefferson
 
That's what happens when you try to trample civil rights.

And I'm tired of "Don't" open carry, you might scare a yuppie"

Or "Don't wear camo, you make us upper middle class gunowner look like rednecks"

Or " Don't mention armed resistance to the government because you make us sheep look like crazies"

It does not matter how law abiding citizens carry, talk or dress, the scared little tories are going to try to take my guns no matter what. At least I am honest about it and will tell them up front that they are welcome to try but don't expect me to give up without armed resistance.
 
"Tom Wales, the president of Washington Ceasefire in Seattle was deliberately shot and killed in his home. No one knew whether the shooting was related to his outspoken views on gun control."

Probably was related to his view; he had announced to the world that he was defenseless. Kind of like wearing a 'Kick me" sign!
 
Well...hmm when you stir the pot and take on a very unpopular stance then you should be prepared to reap the benefits and the dangers it can cause. Does not help us gun owners much for that type of thing to happen but I do not feel bad for her.
 
She got exactly what she wanted - she didn't have a gun, and the police are the only ones she can count on for protection.

i'm sure they will dedicate every officer to her utmost and impassable defense.
 
I took pride in myself as a voice of reason—someone who understood the gun tradition yet knew the value of gun control laws in saving lives.

As a member of a NYS gun control group and founder of its upstate chapter, I fought for laws requiring safe storage, background checks, licensing and registration—not banning guns. But that didn’t matter. Whoever sent the letter wasn’t interested in my position. He just wanted to silence me.

Look, it's wrong to threaten people's lives but... Lady, you clearly do not know crap about the gun owning "tradition", if you want laws requiring safe storage and liscencing.

Also, if you voice an unpopular opinion, be prepared for unpopular responses.
 
Regardless of their opinions, no one who's not physically doing anything wrong should have to be threatened in that manner.
 
I seem to recall a quote that goes something like " A Liberal Anti Gun Person is nothing more than a Conservative Pro Gun person that hasn't been assaulted/mugged/raped/threatened with bodily harm yet"

Pretty consistent with the Winston Churchill quote: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

And my personal favorite Churchill Quote: I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.
 
My comments are at the blog, but two quick things:

1. Nobody has the right to threaten her like that, and I hope nobody here would condone it.

2. She's remarkably self-deceptive about her "voice of reasonable compromise" thing. Early in her blog's life, she actually described asking a room full of gun owners to accept a ban on .50-caliber rifles (which she described as a "compromise") and then in the same post stated that she had never supported banning guns. She really believes she's perfectly mainstream and moderate and she seems to be puzzled as to why all the mean old gun owners won't join her crusade.
 
I agree that there is no place to threaten with bodily harm someone who merely disagrees with you.

However I did find it interesting that:
I welcomed the state police’s decision to begin night patrols of my home.

So she felt safer when she had people with guns around her home after dark....
 
Best of both worlds. Someone else takes on the danger and the responsibility of protecting her, so she can both avoid the physical danger she perceives in the confrontation that could possibly follow, and pretend that she's now safe and can go about her business.

Are you commenting over there? Can't miss me, but I never know who anyone else is behind the usernames.
 
A local agent of the government who council's women who have been raped always tells them "dont carry pepper spray with you when you walk; it will likely be used against you." When I asked her why she wanted totally disarmed and defenseless victims she simply said "cause' I don't want anyone to get seriously hurt. If you enrage your attacker he'll likely kill you." I asked her about the thousands of women who comply with a rapist and who are still murdered. She said "some people have murder in their hart and there is nothing you can do to stop them."

I declared "There is one thing!" She asked what. I told her "take his life before he can take yours!" She became apoplectic and began to scream, SCREAM "YOU MUST BE ONE OF THOSE NRA MEMBERS WHO REPLACES HIS PHALLICE WITH A PISTOL."

I simply replied that 'my big gun never prematurely fires, fails to satisfy, and never never never penetrated any bodily orifice.'

She got really angry and threatened to call the police and tell them that I threatened to rape her with a gun.. I pulled the Sony pocket recorder out of my jacket pocket and invited her to...

Anyway, not really sure what this has to do with anything, I just thought it was a funny story.
 
"Tom Wales, the president of Washington Ceasefire in Seattle was deliberately shot and killed in his home. No one knew whether the shooting was related to his outspoken views on gun control."

Probably was related to his view; he had announced to the world that he was defenseless. Kind of like wearing a 'Kick me" sign!
Tom Wales was also an assistant US attorney specializing in fraud prosecution. For them to suggest that being an anti-gun activist is the reason he was murdered seems to be leaving out other details about his life that could quite possibly be motives too.

I don't condone their actions, someone was very much in the wrong to threaten you and make you feel afraid. At the same time, should you be shocked when people get emotionally charged about what they consider to be a basic human and consitutional right that you're trying to place limitations and restrictions on? Wouldn't you expect some similar responses if you wrote for example that you wanted sensible control of the free exercise of religion?

You talk about going to groups where people share their negative experiences with guns in their lives. Have you attended any events where you might get to hear positive ones? Between the Department of Justice and a FSU criminologist's study its been estimated that guns are used defensively somewhere along 1.5-2 million times a year in the US. Listening to a woman tell me how she used a gun to stop a rape or a battering ex from hurting her and her children has been quite a powerful experience for me.

Tom Wales was also an assistant US attorney specializing in fraud prosecution. You make it sound like his work as a gun control activist is the most likely factor behind his murder. Lets be intellectually honest and admit that he had given criminals a motive for the murder as well.
 
The best of intentions?

I think it's cheeky to hide behind "I don't want to ban guns" when everything you're doing, pertaining to guns, has that end... "It wasn't my intention," they may be prepared to whine, when guns are banned. Sure. It sure was your result.

I've never liked folks who made threats, unless they were tactically intelligent and legal ones. "I'll sue you," if you have a case, is a tactically intelligent and legal threat...

Ohhh, well. What a waste of energy, this little miss. She saw and served Reagan and Brady, so she's claiming knowledge of gun violence? (Making such a claim, implicity or explicitly, is the only way to then go on to proposing "solutions.") That's like if I claimed knowledge of meteorology because I've seen, up close and personal, a couple of floods. Ridiculous.
 
The "threat" she received sounds so pat as to be dubious. In other words, it wouldn't suprise me at all if it was fabricated.

Will the stereotypes of Jews being communists and anti-gun ever end?

Probably not. But then, I'm still waiting for my copy of our conspiracy for world dominance, apparently I missed that meeting. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top